Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:—

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Shipping and Air Transport Profits) (Lebanon) Order 1964 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Mining Industry (Vested Assets)

Mr. Woof: asked the Minister of Power if he will state the original amount of liability for vested assets belonging to the coal mining industry; what amount has been reduced by annual repayment since vesting day what total has been borrowed by the National Coal Board since vesting day up to the latest date; and what is the total interest payment made over the same period.

The Minister of Power (Mr. F. Erroll): The National Coal Board's original liability for vested assets was £388 million, of which £49 million was repaid by 31st December, 1963. Between 1st January, 1947, and 31st December, 1963, £833 million was advanced to the Board under Section 26 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, and £221 million was repaid. In the same period the Board paid £161 million interest on vesting liabilities and £204 million

interest on Exchequer advances. The Board also reimbursed the Exchequer £63 million in respect of interim income paid to former colliery owners.

Mr. Woof: Do not those staggering figures show that the National Coal Board is carrying a very heavy financial burden, and does not the Minister agree that there is an overwhelming case for reducing the rates of interest payments and the capital liabilities?

Mr. Erroll: I think the figures reveal that when capital is used the interest charges should be met. There has been heavy capital investment, and so the interest charges appear large in the aggregate. I think that the coal industry has been fortunate in being able to raise its money at such comparatively advantageous rates.

Colliery Closures

Mr. Woof: asked the Minister of Power if he will give the number of coal mines closed, the number closed through exhaustion, and the number closed through uneconomic reasons, since vesting day up to the latest date.

Mr. Erroll: The total number of collieries closed by the National Coal Board between 1947 and the end of 1963 was 450. I understand that of these 223 had exhausted their reserves, 170 were uneconomic and the remaining 57 were closed for other reasons such as manpower redeployment, flooding and fire.

Mr. Woof: Is the Minister aware that recently 11 collieries have been closed in my constituency and that further closures are contemplated? Will he consult the Durham Division of the National Coal Board with a view to mitigating the social and economic consequences of further closures until alternative employment is provided?

Mr. Erroll: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, individual colliery closures are a matter for the National Coal Board. I am assured that the Board, by careful phasing of closures, does its best to avoid heavy local unemployment and makes every effort to offer alternative jobs to men displaced. With a high level of economic activity


in the country generally, and now fortunately in the North-East, I think that the Board should be able to pursue that policy without the hardship to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is not the Minister aware that the National Coal Board has had to run down the total manpower employed by about 200,000 in the last five years? It is, therefore, not possible for the Board to offer alternative employment. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend and see whether he as Minister of Power can delay closures in some of these cases until his successor at the Board of Trade has been more successful than he has been in attracting alternative employment to these areas?

Mr. Erroll: I think that the figures speak for themselves, because from 1959 to 1963 only about 5,000 men were redundant out of a total of more than 60,000 affected by closures. The policy which I pursued was, I think, successful, and I am sure that my successor will be equally successful.

Coal-face Cutters

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Power (1) if he will make a statement on the potentialities of the research project which has resulted in the development of the Collins Miner, a remote-controlled automatic coal-face cutter; and to what extent the research and development were financed by Her Majesty's Government;
(2) if he will give a general direction in the public interest to the National Coal Board to stimulate the production of automatic coal-face cutters, in view of their export potentialities.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): These projects for remote control of mining processes are an important part of the National Coal Board's efforts to raise productivity and improve safety. They are being developed by the Board on its own responsibility in collaboration with manufacturers. I have no doubt that all aspects of future exploitation, including exports, are being considered.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Minister agree that these machines are among the finest in the world? If he does,

does he also agree that this is a great tribute to the enterprise of the men engaged in the mining industry—both management and workpeople? If it is true that they are such a success, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of asking the Coal Board to consider manufacturing them on a large scale, so that they can be exported for tunnelling and mining purposes throughout the world?

Mr. Peyton: The answer to the last part of the supplementary question is that that is very much a matter for the Board and the manufacturers. I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the imaginativeness of these new methods of extracting coal.

Smokeless Fuels

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Power what steps he is now taking to increase the supply of smokeless fuels in the Glasgow area at prices within the reach of pensioners and people living on low incomes.

Mr. Peyton: I have nothing to add to the replies I gave to the hon. Member on 28th November and to the hon. Members for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) on 19th December and 6th February, respectively.

Mr. Bence: Those Answers were not very helpful. They got us no further. Elderly people, pensioners and those with low incomes who are living in smokeless zones in Glasgow are finding it very difficult to maintain adequate heating in winter owing to present prices. Will he help these people by bringing down the prices of fuels, or consulting his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Peyton: Prices are dominated by the cost of production and also by competition. As I told the hon. Member before, it is not our intention to take powers to control prices as we do not think that it will help.

Miss Harvie Anderson: But will my right hon. Friend look into the question of the quality of Rexco fuel, which has been put on the market in Scotland recently and which does not come up to the required standards of the housewife?

Mr. Peyton: That is not a question for my Department. Rexco is a proprietary fuel, manufactured by a private company. I have no doubt that what my hon. Friend has just said will be duly noted by the manufacturers.

Mr. T. Fraser: But is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the solid smokeless fuel which has been available hitherto in Glasgow and in the west of Scotland generally is the solid smokeless fuel provided by the Scottish Gas Board? It is one of the products of their coal-carbonising plant. Inasmuch as these plants are being replaced by plants which are fuelled by light oil distillates, is it not his responsibility, or that of his Ministry, to ensure that new solid smokeless fuel is available to people in that area?

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member has just referred to the main factor that gave rise to the publication of the Government's White Paper on solid smokeless fuels. It would be wholly wrong for the Government or for my Department to seek to oblige the gas industry to produce a solid fuel when it is becoming increasingly uneconomic for it to do so.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Power if he is aware that the Scottish Gas Board plans to replace coal carbonising plants in the west of Scotland by plants consuming light oil distillates; and what steps he is taking to ensure an adequate supply of solid smokeless fuel as the production of household coke diminishes.

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir. The hon. Member will find the Answers to the second part of his Question in the recent White Paper, Command 2231.

Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no answer there which deals with this point; otherwise this Question would not have been put? Is he aware that many people who live compulsorily in these smokeless zones have fires burning this type of fuel and only this type of fuel, and is he telling us that it is nobody's responsibility when the supply of these fuels disappears and people are left to pay very high prices for a steadily contracting supply of, to them, an essential fuel and the only fuel that can be consumed in their

grates? Is he saying that there is no one with any responsibility at all in this matter?

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir. I am saying, and I dealt with this in Answer to an earlier question, that it would be wrong for the Government to seek to use their powers to stop the gas industry from developing those processes which seem most economic and profitable.

Mr. Lawson: I am asking whether there is anyone with any responsibility at all for the supply of essential fuels for people who are compulsorily put in the position which they are at present?

Mr. Peyton: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the White Paper that deals with the whole of this very complicated problem. There is a wide range of choice of various smokeless fuels, solid and non-solid.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that he was wrong in telling my hon. Friend that the answer to the latter part of his question was contained in the White Paper? Is it not a fact that the White Paper poses the problem but declines to give any answer at all but leaves it to the consumers in those areas to choose, in the main, between the non-solid smokeless fuels—oil, gas and electricity—in place of the solid smokeless fuel for which they have purchased rather expensive appliances? Have not the Government some responsibility in this matter?

Mr. Peyton: I do not think that I can usefully add to the Answer that I have already given.

Prices

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Power if he will consult the National Coal Board regarding the desirability of a reduction in coal prices in Scotland.

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the Minister of Power if he has had consultations recently with the Chairman of the National Coal Board about the desirability of reducing certain coal prices in selected areas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Hill: asked the Minister of Power if he is aware that traditional markets for coal are being lost to fuel oil in the east of Scotland adjacent to


and within the Midlothian coalfield in consequence of the selective coal price increases imposed in Scotland two years ago; and if he will discuss with the Chairman of the National Coal Board the need for selective price reductions at an early date.

Miss Herbison: asked the Minister of Power if, in view of the greatly improved financial position of the coal industry in Scotland and in order to maintain the market for Great Britain's only indigenous fuel, what proposals have been put to him by the National Coal Board for a review of coal prices in Scotland.

Mr. Erroll: I would refer hon. Members to my reply of 28th November to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). I know that the Board is alive to the importance of securing a proper relationship between its costs and its prices and of maintaining its competitive power and markets in Scotland and elsewhere.

Mr. Bence: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his Parliamentary Secretary, because the high cost of smokeless fuel is due to the cost of coal, and the cost of coal in Scotland is greater than it is in England? Will he see that the cost of the raw product—coal—in the production of smokeless fuels is reduced in Scotland so that people there can buy smokeless solid fuel for the same price as in England?

Mr. Erroll: I think that it would help the hon. Member if I reminded him that price changes are a matter for the National Coal Board to initiate.

Mr. T. Fraser: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that these selective coal price increases were announced in this House a little over two years ago by his predecessor? They were not announced by the Coal Board but by the Minister in order to placate some of his hon. Friends immediately prior to the discussion of the Coal Industry (Borrowing Powers) Bill on that day. Is he not further aware that there have been occasions when the coal industry in Scotland has failed to get contracts for heating or for certain appliances required by public authorities? Subject to the control of Ministers, about which

there was a discussion in this House only last week, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise there is now a strong case for removing some of these selective price increases? Will not the right hon. Gentleman consult the Chairman of the National Coal Board to this end?

Mr. Erroll: There has been a great improvement in the fortunes of the Scottish coal industry in the last two years since selective prices came into operation, but the fact is that the Scottish coalfields are still not covering their full cost and it is still a question whether there should be a reduction in prices. This is a matter for the Coal Board to determine.

Mr. J. Hill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these selective price increases IA ere made two years ago and that our Scottish industries have been affected, especially the paper trade? Will he not again consider consulting the Chairman of the National Coal Board? The coal industry in Scotland is losing contracts to England because it is possible to import coal from England more cheaply than it can be bought in Scotland, owing to these selective price increases. Surely there is something wrong with that situation?

Mr. Erroll: We should remember that the coal industry receives a certain amount of protection from the oil industry and that there is a ban on coal imports. These two forms of protection help the industry, and within those protective limits it should find its own competitive level.

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that everyone in Scotland is convinced that the Government played a very big part in the imposition of higher prices for coal in Scotland? Since that is so, will the Government now step in and consult the Chairman of the National Coal Board with a view to reducing the prices? Is the Minister also aware that coal is our only indigenous fuel and because of the increased prices the National Cal Board, which is doing an excellent job with the help of the miners who are at present employed in the industry, lost the contracts for providing central heating in two Scottish hospitals? Does not that worry the Government, in view of the fact that the unemployment figure is so high?

Mr. Erroll: The question of the hospitals is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. On the more general issue, the House must remember that before the price increases in Scotland the English pits were subsidising the production of Scottish coal. I do not think that hon. Members on either side of the House who represent English constituencies would relish a return to that state of affairs.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the most profitable pits in British coalfields are situated within a stone's throw of Edinburgh and that the hospitals are not now to be fuelled by means of our indigenous fuel but by oil imported from the Middle East?

Mr. Erroll: Certainly. This is part of the problem. The very profitable pits to which the hon. Gentleman referred have to subsidise those in Scotland which are still operating at a loss.

Coal Distribution (Depots)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Power, (1) in giving his approval to the National Coal Board's plans, involving major capital expenditure, for concentrating coal depots, what information he received on how distribution costs will be increased or reduced as a result of the change being made;
(2) if he is aware of plans made by the National Coal Board to construct large centralised depots for coal distribution; and if he will issue a general direction to the National Coal Board forbidding the closure of local depots where this will result in increased coal prices to domestic consumers.

Mr. Peyton: Discussions are proceeding locally between the National Coal Board, the coal trade and the railways with a view to securing maximum economy in the new distribution arrangements; but I understand that, in many cases, the National Coal Board will look to private enterprise to construct central depots. The extent to which the Board will itself be called upon to undertake major capital expenditure is not yet known.

Mr. Manuel: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what radius these new

depôts are intended to cover? Is he aware that retailers on the perimeter of any of these new areas will have very much increased transport costs compared with the retailers at the centre or near the new coal depôts? Would he examine the position with a view to protecting domestic consumers of coal where prices would be put up because of added transport costs on the retailer taking coal from the new depôts as against the local depôts? Can he give an assurance that if this means an increase in the cost to the domestic consumer the local coal depôts will be retained until some other method is arrived at which will give parity of price in these areas?

Mr. Peyton: I would not like to give that assurance. The question of the closure of depôts is a matter for the railways, to whom they normally belong. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the whole purpose of this operation is to cut down the costs of coal distribution, and that this is plainly in the interests of the coal industry and of the railways.

Approved Coal Merchants' Scheme

Mr. Hannan: asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied with the progress made by the Approved Coal Merchants' Scheme towards improving their standard of service to domestic consumers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: The progress of this scheme is a matter for the trade and the National Coal Board, but I have noted with satisfaction that members of the scheme are now responsible for the distribution of some 86 per cent. of the house coal supplies in the country.

Mr. Hannan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the price of coal to the consumer increases in ratio to the lower income groups? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this was first spoken about by his predecessor as far back as 1960 and the scheme was introduced in 1962? Can we be told how many retail coal merchants there are in the country and how many of them are in this scheme?

Mr. Peyton: I understand that 86 per cent. of the house coal delivered in this country is handled by members of the scheme. I should add that the


National Coal Board is considering with the trade what can be done with the other 14 per cent.

Prices and Grades

Mr. Hannan: asked the Minister of Power what references he has made to the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council concerning prices being charged in excess of that appropriate to the coal group; and what reports the Council has made to him on the steps being taken to establish a complaints procedure through which the domestic consumer can seek redress.

Mr. Peyton: Merchants are free to fix their own retail prices, but I have no evidence that the prices being charged are excessive. The Domestic Coal Consumers' Council referred to the procedure for complaints about defective deliveries in its Annual Report for the year ended 30th June, 1963.

Mr. Hannan: Surely the Minister cannot deny that the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council referred to him malpractices taking place in the sale of coal and the variation of prices compared with grades? What steps has the Minister taken, or does he intend to take, to make public what the ordinary consumer can do to ventilate grievances and seek redress against these malpractices?

Mr. Peyton: A leaflet describing the complaints procedure was given very wide circulation to merchants, local authorities, women's organisations and all Members of both Houses of Parliament. I have no reason to believe that the procedures are not well enough known to members of the public, who always have a choice of complaining to their own merchant, the original supplier of the fuel, or the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Nuclear Power Programme

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Power if, in relation to his responsibilities for taking decisions on the nuclear power programme, he will seek information from the Government of the United States of America about the capital costs

of nuclear power plant now being built in the United States of America.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Power what evaluation has been made of the United States General Electric boiling water reactor for future atomic power stations in this country; and whether he intends to sanction its use by the Central Electricity Generating Board as a substitute for advanced gas-cooled reactors.

Mr. Erroll: The Committee examining the future of the nuclear power programme will have taken into account any type of nuclear reactor which might prove economic in this country, and the Government will reach their decisions in the light of the Committee's advice on this and other relevant matters.

Mr. Albu: In view of the very considerable delay in the Committee making its report, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be advisable for as much public information as possible to be provided about the claims being made by the General Electric Co. of America for its boiling water reactor, which it claims to be able to build for a capital cost of under £40 per kilowatt? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that Parliament and the whole country should have as much information as possible about the relative advantages of different types of reactor?

Mr. Erroll: I agree with the hon. Member. I thought that his Question was possibly tabled in the light of the publicity given to the offer of the General Electric Co. of America. I can assure him that the Atomic Energy Authority and the Government have in their possession all the information which they need regarding this and other developments in the United States.

Mr. Albu: Can we have the information as well, at some time?

Mr. Erroll: I will consider that.

Power Station (Swansea Area)

Mr. McBride: asked the Minister of Power what proposals he has now received from the Central Electricity Generating Board for the siting of a major power station in the Swansea area, in view of the fact that plans for such a station were prepared in March 1963.

Mr. Erroll: None, Sir.

Mr. McBride: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present Tir John Power Station is no longer fully operational for 24 hours a day and that a new base load station would be an asset in this area? Is he also aware that this matter was discussed by the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board in March 1963? What was the outcome of that discussion? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware of the fact that on the proposed site the natural rock foundation has been ascertained? Lastly, would not a decision on this matter be a great help to industrial development in the next two years, since that is the time normally taken between the inception and construction of a major power station and the time when it becomes fully operational? Would this not be an excellent part of the regional development plans of his right hon. Friends?

Mr. Erroll: The most important thing is that the Central Electricity Generating Board should be free to decide on the programme of its future stations and on the time of construction of each station. It is therefore proper for me to wait until the Board applies to me for consent to build a station. As for the power needs of South Wales, the Board has already announced plans for a speeding up of the completion of the Aberthaw "B" Station near Cardiff, and when it is fully operational, by 1968, it will use no fewer than three of the new 500 megawatt sets.

Mr. McBride: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Electricity and Gas Meters (Stolen Cash)

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Minister of Power if he will give general directions in the public interest to the Electricity Council and the Gas Council not to demand repayment by householders of cash stolen from their electricity and gas meters unless satisfied that the money was stolen by the householders themselves.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir. This is a matter which is best left to the discretion of the area boards.

Lieut-Colonel Cordeaux: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the householder concerned has no say at all about the theft-resisting qualities of the meter and has no control over the frequency of the clearances of the money which is in the meter? Under those circumstances, would he not agree that it is monstrous that any householder, rich or poor, should be required to make good this loss?

Mr. Peyton: My hon. and gallant Friend will bear in mind that the boards are entitled to do what they can to ensure the security of money belonging to them. I ought also to remind my hon. and gallant Friend that, if the boards are to carry the losses, those losses must ultimately be passed on to the consumer.

Sir B. Stross: Is not it a strange doctrine which the Parliamentary Secretary is offering to us? Surely if the householder has put his money in the meter he has given it to the Board, and once the money is in the meter, legally it does not belong to the householder but to the board? If the money is stolen, is not it the board's loss and not the householder's, who is now supposed to pay twice? That is a monstrous suggestion.

Mr. Peyton: It depends on the terms of the contract. Most boards expressly stipulate in their conditions of supply that, although money belongs to the board after being put into a meter, nevertheless the householder is to be responsible for its custody.

Mr. Carmichael: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that both the Question and Answer are misleading? Is he aware that there have been such cases before the courts in Scotland, for instance at Paisley sheriff court, and it has been established that if the householder can prove that he is in no way responsible for the meter having been broken into, the board is responsible for the cash? Is he aware that that is on record?

Mr. Peyton: I am not responsible for the decisions of the courts, and I cannot answer for them in this House. The clear point I am making is that this is a matter which is better left to the discretion of the area boards, who make


every attempt to deal with the question sympathetically, particularly in cases of hardship.

Mr. Holt: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what freedom a householder has in deciding what are the terms of the contract to which the hon. Gentleman referred?

Mr. Peyton: That is not a matter for me. The terms of contracts are matters between the supplier and the consumer.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Iron and Steel Industry

Mr. O'Malley: asked the Minister of Power what information he has regarding the relative rate of increase in productivity of the iron and steel industry in the United Kingdom compared with the European Coal and Steel Community.

Mr. Erroll: I am advised that the output of crude steel per man-hour increased at an average rate of 2·8 per cent. a year in the United Kingdom and of 4·2 per cent. a year in the European Coal and Steel Community between 1957 and the second quarter of 1963. Productivity in the United Kingdom in the fourth quarter of 1963 was much higher than the average for the year as a whole and output per man-hour in that quarter was 28·5 per cent. higher than in 1957, equivalent to a rate of growth of about 4·3 per cent. a year; the corresponding figure for the Community is not available.

Mr. O'Malley: Is not it a fact that the progress of the United Kingdom steel industry over the last decade in terms of production and productivity has lagged badly behind all the members of E.C.S.C.? Would not the Minister agree that the reason is the restrictive general and economic policies of the Government, the inadequacy of the steel firms in respect of research and technical innovations, and the low number of qualified scientists and engineers employed?

Mr. Erroll: I rather expected that the hon. Gentleman would draw the wrong

deduction from the figures which I have given. The fact is that productivity expressed as a percentage is very much dependent on the degree of utilisation of capacity in the industry at any given time. A decline in demand appears to lower the rate of productivity, because men are not discharged as they might be in other industries. When there is an increase in demand, a considerably higher output is achieved by the same number of men, and so it is thoroughly misleading to make the sort of comparison which the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. O'Malley: But is not it a fact that other steel industries in E.C.S.C. have been working to a greater degree and capacity in recent years than the United Kingdom steel industry, and that one of the reasons for the low growth of productivity in this country is because we have been working at under capacity as a result of Government policies?

Mr. Erroll: I have often heard it put by hon. Members opposite that there should always be a good reserve margin of capacity in the iron and steel industry of this country and, because of its existence, we have been able to improve output when more steel is required.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the industry were free from the threat of nationalisation it would be a good thing?

Mr. Erroll: I am glad to endorse what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. J. Robertson: asked the Minister of Power (1) what is the estimated capacity of strip steel production in Scotland; and what is the extent of the current demand for this commodity in Scotland;

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Power what plans he has for the future of the strip and sheet steel industry in Scotland, as a contribution to development and growth in the areas to which special reference is made in the White Paper on Central Scotland.

Mr. Erroll: Capacity for strip mill products is about 675,000 tons a year. Current demand for sheet in Scotland is between 175,000 and 200,000 tons. There is also some demand for light plate. Existing facilities are capable of


considerable expansion, but no new capacity is planned at the moment.

Mr. Robertson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a most unsatisfactory position, and would he have a word with his right hon. Friend to see if it is possible to have another car factory transferred to Scotland, or some other industry which would use strip steel?

Mr. Erroll: There is no satisfying some hon. Members opposite. They complained bitterly when there was no strip mill in Scotland, and now that one of an economically efficient size has been installed they are complaining that it is there but it is not fully utilised. If it were fully utilised we could not attract to Scotland more industrial capacity to use the products of this mill. We have always said that it would take time for the consumption of this strip mill to be built up in Scotland. In the meantime, it is open to Colvilles to send their strip to England or to compete in overseas markets.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so long as he continues to rely, as he and his right hon. Friend have relied, upon private enterprise dealing with this difficulty, we shall continue to have this problem? Is he not aware that the strip mill was put there through Government intervention and that it has become necessary to take much more radical steps than are dreamed of at present in order that this strip mill can be fully utilised? This strip mill can be the making of Scotland industrially in the modern age, and will he not see that it is utilised?

Mr. Erroll: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the establishment of this strip mill in Scotland, and that we have taken the right decision. As to the establishing of firms in Scotland to use this strip, this is a matter of industrial location, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. J. Robertson: asked the Minister of Power at what level of its estimated productive capacity the steel industry of Scotland has been operating in the past year.

Mr. Erroll: About 65 per cent. of capacity. In the final quarter the rate was about 76 per cent.

Mr. Robertson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is quite the worst performance in the whole of the United Kingdom? Would he see whether this situation arises through lack of shipbuilding orders on the Clyde, and, if so, will he again approach his rgiht hon. Friend to see if something can be done to steer shipping orders to the Clyde so that the steel works can come nearer to using its capacity?

Mr. Erroll: A number of important steps have been taken during the last year to assist in the growth of Scottish industry, particularly that part using steel. I am very glad to see that these measures have been so effective that in the past quarter the rate of use was up to 76 per cent. capacity.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that two English motor car companies have established factories in Scotland and that there is a considerable demand from these companies for ancillaries, which now have to be brought all the way from the Midlands, and that if Scotsmen would show more enterprise in setting up more factories, they could use their own steel production?

North Sea (Oil Prospecting Rights)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Power under what system he proposes to allocate rights of exploitation to oil companies prospecting in the North Sea.

Mr. Erroll: I have this important matter in hand, but am not yet ready to make a statement.

Mr. Dalyell: Shall we know before the end of the Committee stage of the Bill?

Mr. Erroll: That might depend on how long the Committee stage takes. In more practical terms, whatever system is decided on will be put into regulations under the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934. These will be laid before Parliament. I think that it would be wrong to table regulations while the Continental Shelf Bill is still going through its Committee stage.

Gas and Electricity Meters

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Power whether he will, in the public interest, give general directions to gas and electricity boards that, when making connections to new houses and flats, gas and electricity meters should be put outside each dwelling to make for easier reading by officials from the boards.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir. This is a matter for the gas and electricity boards and the owners of the property.

Sir B. Janner: Has the Minister read the Report of the London Electricity Consultative Council? Is he aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction in respect of the accounts as submitted now and that this would be a way of dealing with the position so that the consumer would know what he owed as well as the board making the charge? Does not he think that this should be considered?

Mr. Peyton: I understand that the London proposals are being considered by the Electricity Council. I understand that both the Electricity Council and the Gas Council would welcome such arrangements if they were possible, always subject to the needs of security and economy in cost.

Privately Operated Meters (Electricity Prices)

Mr. Barnett: asked the Minister of Power when he expects to complete his inquiries on the question of the control of the price at which electricity supplied by area electricity boards is resold through privately operated meters.

Mr. Peyton: My right hon. Friend has received a letter from the Electricity Council explaining why area boards have not so far used their powers under Section 29 of the Electricity Act, 1957. I am arranging for it to be included in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Barnett: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is a very strong case for this provision in the Electricity Act, 1957, to be implemented? Is he not aware that I brought this matter to his attention a year ago, with considerable support from other hon. Members, because there are occasions when the

much as 100 per cent. or even 200 per cent. on the original price? Does he not believe that there is a very strong case for resale price maintenance in electricity?

Mr. Peyton: I am very well aware of the interest that the hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members have taken in this matter. I accept that it is a very serious and difficult problem and that there are abuses. I hope that he will read the letter to which I referred from the Chairman of the Electricity Council. The Council would be most willing to produce a system which would cope with these abuses, but it would be equally anxious in curing present ills not to produce even greater anomalies.

Following is the letter:

THE ELECTRICITY COUNCIL

30, Millbank, London, S.W.1

5th February, 1964.

CHAIRMAN'S OFFICE

The Rt. Hon. Frederick Erroll, M.P.,

Minister of Power,

Thames House South,

Millbank,

London, S.W.1.

Dear Minister,

Maximum Charges for reselling Electricity Supplied by Electricity Boards

In response to your request, I set out below the main reasons why the Area Boards have not so far used their powers under Section 29 of the Electricity Act, 1957, to fix maximum charges at which consumers of electricity may resell the electricity to their tenants.

The main difficulties in fixing maximum resale prices in the Electricity Supply Industry are:

(a) Most landlords will be purchasing electricity on tariffs which have either a fixed quarterly charge or a primary block of units at a relatively high price followed in each case by a low unit or running charge: this means that they may be paying widely differing average prices per unit depending on whether their consumption is small or large. To quote typical figures the average price which a landlord is paying may well vary from about 6d. per unit to a figure as low as 2d. per unit or even less. It is therefore extremely difficult to fix general maximum resale prices which will adequately safeguard the tenants and at the same time avoid injustice to many landlords.
(b) Any attempt to relate the maximum resale price to the average price which the landlord himself pays, runs into difficulties because a high proportion of electricity resold to tenants is controlled by prepayment meters owned by the landlords, and these meters have to be calibrated at a predetermined price per unit. If maximum resale prices were based on the average price paid by the landlords (which would be variable this would inevitably involve


landlords in giving rebates or collecting supplementary charges to correct for the price collected by the meter. Such an arrangement would be difficult to work bearing in mind the many thousands of short tenancies where the occupants would have left the premises before the landlord was able to take the appropriate action. Frequent recalibration of prepayment meters is also impracticable.
(c) If Boards were to fix maximum resale prices the Courts would doubtless require evidence of the accuracy of meters on which complaints were based. Meters owned by the Electricity Boards have, by law, to be certified but there is no such provision governing meters belonging to landlords—many of these meters are of older patterns which would not be capable of certification. The provision of modern meters in all cases would be a considerable task, the cost of which would presumably fall on the landlords in the first place.

The Council and Area Boards recognise that there are opportunities for abuse and they have examined a number of possible solutions, none of which seems wholly satisfactory. They are willing in principle to take action if a satisfactory solution can be found, and it would help them to gauge the size of the problem if cases of apparent abuse could be brought to their attention or that of the Consultative Councils.

The Area Boards and Consultative Councils will continue the practice of giving advice to tenants and landlords who refer the matter to them.

Yours sincerely,

(Sgd.) RONALD EDWARDS.

Public Institutions (Indigenous Fuels)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Power if it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage public authorities to use indigenous fuel in preference to imported fuel unless there are substantial economies to be gained by using the latter.

Mr. J. Hill: asked the Minister of Power if he will introduce legislation to ensure that he will be consulted in future when Government institutions, with a view to installing new heating systems, are considering competitive offers for the supply of fuel from oil companies and the National Coal Board.

Mr. Erroll: It remains Government policy that the coal industry, which at present receives some protection, should have full opportunities of competing for such business. I do not contemplate legislation for consultation with me on individual cases.

Mr. Hamilton: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report of the Adjourn

ment debate on the question of the heating of two hospitals in Edinburgh, in which it was stated that the Coal Board gave guarantees of price stability over a number of years dating from now? The contract was nevertheless giver to the oil companies. There was substantial evidence of price rigging and none of the oil companies made a point of stating that it would guarantee a price when the oil was delivered in 1966–67, nor in any subsequent year. In view of these figures and the fact that this means loss of employment for 135 Scottish miners, will he not consult the Secretary of State for Scotland to get a little sense into allocating these contracts?

Mr. Erroll: The matter, as the hon. Member suggested, was fully ventilated in the Adjournment debate. I do not think it would be useful to go through the whole of that debate now. This is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland with whom, naturally, I am always in touch.

Mr. Hamilton: Is it not true that the Secretary of State would not consult the right hon. Gentleman and he made no attempt to consult the Secretary of State? He admitted that.

Mr. Erroll: There are a lot of things the hon. Member does not know about.

Coal and Oil Industries, Scotland

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Power what was the revenue from coal produced and oil refined, respectively, in Scotland in the latest complete year; what was the average number of workers employed in each of these industries; and what was the cost of importing crude oil.

Mr. Erroll: In 1962 N.C.B. colliery proceeds in Scotland were £88 million; the number of workers on colliery books averaged 64,000. The value of the output of Scottish refineries in 1962 is estimated at about £37 million and the value of the crude oil imports at about £28 million. The number of employees at the oil refineries was about 2,000.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman understand—or has he attempted to understand—why the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland went out of his way in the Adjournment


debate last Wednesday to compliment the oil industry on its contribution to the Scottish economy but made no reference whatever to the coal industry's contribution? Is there not evidence that the coal industry has made and will make a much greater contribution to the Scottish economy than the oil industry is likely to make?

Mr. Erroll: I think both industries are making important contributions. As I said earlier, I am pleased to see the improvement in the finances of the Scottish coal industry over the past two years. I should have thought the hon. Member would have welcomed the presence of oil refineries in Scotland, not only because of their direct output, but because their existence contributes to other industries in the neighbourhood. If he does not want more refineries there, I am sure that the north-east of England would be glad to have them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC MANPOWER

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the impending departure of Professor Bush and his colleagues for the United States of America, if he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the whole problem of training, recruitment, and retention of scientific manpower for service in this country.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: That reply was inaudible.

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: If a Royal Commission is unacceptable, what proposals do the Government have to alleviate the short-term, more simple—I repeat more simple—problems of secretarial assistance, laboratory assistance and the more prompt purchase of equipment?

Mr. Lloyd: I would not like the hon. Member to think that because my Answer was rather short I do not think this a real problem but I think it is one which should be kept in proper perspective. It does not affect only this country. In 1961, of those who went to the United States about 15 per cent. came from this country, 25 per cent. resale of electricity is being charged at as

from Canada, and 25 per cent. from countries of Western Europe; so it is not a problem which concerns this country alone. The plain fact is that, so long as the United States has a gross national product eight times as great as ours, it will be natural for people to want to go there. That is one of the facts of the situation. The reason I said no to the suggestion of a Royal Commission was that the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, a body under the chairmanship of Lord Todd, which is a very distinguished body, made certain recommendations about this matter last May. The important thing is to get on with the task of implementing those recommendations.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that there will be considerable agreement with his Answer, because this matter has been examined by innumerable committees—going back to the Barlow Commission of 1946—but that makes it all the more necessary that the Government, whatever the difficulty of speed, should give some lead over scientific manpower, its use and prospects? Will he bear in mind that, apart from the lack of funds for major projects during the period of stringency in universities, many eminent men have been forced to waste hours and days arguing about small administrative details and that it is partly these pinpricks which have driven them to go to America?

Mr. Lloyd: Of course, these are matters for debate, and in answer to another Question I may have something to say about that, but I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important for action to be taken. In fact, in the last 12 years Government expenditure on scientific research and development has gone up from £30 million to £172 million and for research councils in the period 1952–3 to this next year it will have risen from about £10 million to £50 million. The recent increase of £20 million announced by my right hon. Friend was designed as to a substantial part to meet the recommendations of the Robbins Committee's Report and the Advisory Council. To give a direct answer to part of the right hon. Member's Question, although it may seem a small point to him, last July a


decision was announced to give more than £200 per annum in respect of each research award. That would mean £800,000 additional revenue accruing this year to meet the point he has mentioned.

Mr. Longden: Is it not just as well—or is it?—that hon. Members of this House are not so fastidious about their facilities for research and conditions of work generally as these professors, or we should have to close down in London, England, and reopen in London, Arkansas?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that perhaps my hon. Friend has suggested an appropriate sense of balance. I am not certain, however, that geographically it was an appropriate sense of balance.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that one of the big factors affecting university research workers and others was his own dismal record at the Treasury and the cuts in the University Grants Committee? Even in the euphoria of a pre-election period, will he cast a thought back occasionally to his own record on this? Is he not aware of figures which have been published only this morning, showing by categories the numbers of eminent scientists and, much more important in terms of numbers, engineers and technologists who are leaving the country? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we simply cannot afford a brain drain of one-eighth of our current output of Ph.D.s every year to another country?

Mr. Lloyd: I have certainly said that I think that this is a real problem. I suspect that, even if this country were ever to suffer the almost calamitous misfortune of the right hon. Gentleman being Prime Minister, he would find the problem a very real one for him also. He referred to what he described as my dismal record. I have looked up the figures. In the two years the money spent on the universities' current and capital account rose from £88 million to £122 million.

Mr. Wilson: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that on 5th April, 1962, when I think he was still Chancellor, his Government

voted down the proposals of the U.G.C. for the very cautious and limited programme the Committee was then embarking on, which we now know from the Robbins Report is totally inadequate for the higher education needs of the country?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that the test is some debating point. The question is how much money has actually been spent.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would my right hon. and learned friend agree that Professor Bush has had two activities—one under the Medical Research Council and the other as head of a faculty in Birmingham University? Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Professor Bush himself has said that he has no complaints over what the Medical Research Council has done? Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what will now happen to the department in Birmingham University for which Professor Bush was responsible, or has he left it in the lurch?

Mr. Lloyd: As to the figures, it is quite true that Professor Bush's research work was supported by the Medical Research Council. All his requests to the Council were met. In 1958 the sum of £3,000 was provided for him. In 1963–64 the figure was £38,000. There has never been any refusal to him, as I think he has frankly stated, of funds for his research work. With regard to his work as professor of physiology, all I can say is that the recurrent grant for Birmingham University rose from £2·2 million in 1960 to £3·3 million in 1963–64. That is designed in part to cover the kind of point which my hon. Friend put forward. I think had better not comment on the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COMMISSIONS

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the needs of many sections of the community whose problems may merit examination by a Royal Commission, by what criteria he decides whether to advise the appointment of a Royal Commission.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend decides these questions on their merits.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: If conditions for setting up a Royal Commission to inquire into one section of the community must be conditions in America, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that for many years salaries and wages in America have been double those in this country? We in this overcrowded island have never been averse to fertilising America with brains of all kinds which have emigrated there. If we are to judge by American conditions, there might be a case for the whole country emigrating, including Members of Parliament. Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is nothing new in what is going on at the moment?

Mr. Lloyd: In view of all this talk about the emoluments which may be available in another country. I think that their purchasing power should also be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Engineering

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Education if he is satisfied that present and projected arrangements are adequate to meet the steadily increasing demand for professional engineers; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway): Between 1959 and 1962, the number of full-time and sandwich students taking advanced courses in the further education institutions for which my right hon. Friend is responsible rose from 24,000 to 38,000, and he has announced an increase in the building programme for further education from £16 million in 1964–65 to £24 million in 1965–66. He is doing all he can to make known these enlarged opportunities to suitably qualified candidates. The supply of professional engineers will also of course benefit from the Government's plan for expanding the universities.

Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he not agree that in the years ahead there is likely to be a considerable shortage of professional engineers? Would he consider as a

possible solution the establishment of an official register of such engineers on lines similar to those for the legal profession and the medical profession?

Mr. Chataway: That is a question for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Albu: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that any such register would be a disaster for the profession?

Teachers

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education how many teachers over 65 years of age are still teaching.

Mr. Chataway: In March 1962, the latest date for which firm figures are at present available, there were 1,108 teachers over the age of 65 in maintained primary and secondary schools, 67 in grant-aided further education establishments, and 21 in teacher training colleges.

Mr. Boyden: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a pitifully small figure and reflects the failure of the Minister's campaign to retain the older teachers? Would he ask his right hon. Friend to have another look at the Knox Report on the supply of teachers in Scotland, which contained a very strong recommendation that there should be a much greater financial inducement for superannuated teachers?

Mr. Chataway: I am aware of that Report and of the recommendations that are made from time to time on the question of superannuation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend is aware of these problems and is considering how best to increase this number.

Dr. King: Is it not a simple fact that a number of older teachers who have retired now come back part-time because they have no financial inducement to do anything else but part-time teaching? If they had their pension as of right and could earn, they could do the country a very good service at this time.

Mr. Chataway: I do not contest that this may be the case in some instances, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that there are difficulties about making a concession to teachers in this


matter of the retirement pension in isolation.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education what plans he has for increasing the number of men teachers in junior schools.

Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend's plans for the expansion of the training colleges during the present decade, with their continued emphasis on meeting the staffing needs of the primary schools, will produce a steadily increasing output of men teachers for the junior schools. His National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers is at present studying whether it would be desirable and practicable to train proportionately more men than at present.

Mr. Boyden: Does not the Robbins Report and its acceptance by the Government alter the hesitation of the Advisory Council about recruiting and maintaining more places in training colleges for men? Is not this one of the best ways to secure a higher teacher force in view of the wastage of young women?

Mr. Chataway: The problem is much more complex than that. The fact of the matter is that the teaching profession is at the moment undergoing something of a change of sex and the proportion of male teachers is rising very rapidly. The Council is therefore bound to consider what is the maximum proportion of male teachers that is desirable in the profession.

Partially Deaf Children

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Education if, in view of the growing trend for children with hearing defects to be educated in ordinary schools, he will take steps to ensure that the curricula of teachers' training colleges include a short course of lectures on the special problems involved in teaching partially deaf children.

Mr. Chataway: It is the general practice in training colleges for students to be made aware of the needs of handicapped pupils and to visit a variety of schools, including special schools, during their initial training. My right hon. Friend agrees that it is important for teachers to know of these needs, but he

does not think that lectures on a particular handicap should be made a compulsory part of training.

Mr. Robinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people think that this trend is a desirable one, but only on the condition that there are sufficient teachers who are aware of the particular difficulties of teaching children who are partially deaf? Will he look very carefully into this and perhaps consider at a later stage whether a short course of lectures might not be desirable?

Mr. Chataway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the suggestion. Already some local education authorities employ peripatetic teachers of the deaf, whose duties include advice to teachers in service. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that those teachers who have partially deaf children in their schools should be aware of the problems, particularly of the need to seek specialist advice when that is necessary.

CYPRUS

Mr. A. Henderson: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether, in view of the widespread disturbances which occurred in Cyprus this morning, he will make a statement on the present position of British nationals on the island.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): For some time the Commander-in-Chief in Cyprus has had authority to arrange for the evacuation of Service dependants and other British nationals who are living outside the sovereign base areas.
Plans have been made for this purpose and the necessary air transport is held in readiness.
In view of the renewed outbreak of inter-communal violence the Commander-in-Chief was reminded this morning that he has full discretion to proceed with the evacuation of British civilians should he consider that their safety requires it.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that about 5,000 or 6,000 British women and children are living in Limassol and


neighbouring Greek and Turkish villages? Would it not be wise, in these circumstances, to arrange forthwith to concentrate them as far as possible in the Royal Air Force base and to evacuate without further delay those who cannot be so taken into the base?

Mr. Sandys: As I said in my reply, the Commander-in-Chief has full authority to do that and I think that, in the circumstances, it is better to leave this matter to his discretion. When I was out there, not long ago, I discussed the whole matter with him and I can assure the House that he is every bit as mindful as all of us for the safety of the Service families and other British nationals in Cyprus. I am sure that he will not delay beyond the time that he considers necessary.
On the other hand, it must be realised that to take these families away—to separate wives from husbands, and so on—and either to crowd them up in the base areas or to send them home, possibly with no particular arrangements for receiving them, is not something that should be done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] They do not have homes to go to. I do not mean that they would be out in the street; just that great inconvenience would be caused to the families. One wants to leave it to the Commander-in-Chief to exercise his judgment in this matter.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House will not want, at this very critical moment in the negotiations, to have anything said that might make it more difficult to get the peace-keeping force and everything else required to settle the Cyprus problem? Equally, all of us will want to join in expressing our deep concern not only for our forces there, but also for the civilians to whom he has referred.
Having said that, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would explain the rather extraordinary character of his original statement, when he said that this morning the Commander-in-Chief had been reminded of something or other? Did the right hon. Gentleman not think before this morning that the Commander-in-Chief was aware—was mindful, to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase—of

his powers in this matter and of the discretion that he should exercise? Was this reminder designed to press him into doing it, or was it based on the assumption that he did not know what his powers were? Why did the right hon. Gentleman use that odd phrase?

Mr. Sandys: I thought that, in view of the change in the situation which has taken place in the last 24 hours, it would not be a bad thing—perhaps unnecessary; but I did not think that I could be reproached for it—to get in touch again with the Commander-in-Chief, not only to remind him that he had the authority but also—it is no good the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) scowling at me. I am trying to explain this to the House.
Naturally, there are other considerations which the Commander-in-Chief has no doubt taken into account in recent weeks—the effect upon morale in Cyprus, the possibility of creating panic if we started prematurely to evacuate civilians.
Since Americans have already been evacuated recently, and in view of the deterioration in the situation, I thought it right to remind the Commander-in-Chief once again that he had the fullest discretion to do what he thought best in the interests of the safety of our Service families and civilians. I do not think that I should be reproached for doing that.

Mr. Grimond: As the Secretary of State has spoken of the deterioration in the situation, has he any late information to give to the House about the situation in Cyprus? Can he tell us how far, if at all, British troops have been involved in the latest troubles?

Mr. Sandys: They are involved all the time in all these troubles and that is why we are so anxious—although I do not wart to go into this today—to secure as quickly as possible the establishment of a larger and more broadly based peace keeping force.

Mr. Driberg: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement on the broader aspects which we have twice been promised he would make later this week? Do not these latest deplorable incidents underline the


urgent need of getting a solution which is acceptable to the Government of Cyprus and which will ease the task of the British troops?

Mr. Sandys: I will make a statement as soon as I can. I know that the House wants information, but these negotiations are still in a very fluid and difficult state. Of course, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the most awkward problems is to find a solution, a formula, for the international force which is acceptable to all the parties concerned, including the two communities in Cyprus.

Mr. G. Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that his statement, in which he thought it important not only to remind the Commander-in-Chief but to announce to the whole world that he had had to remind a Commander-in-Chief of his powers, cannot make the Commander-in-Chief's position very much more easy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If Ministers make statements they must be prepared to be questioned about them. We are bound, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had formed the opinion that the Commander-in-Chief had forgotten. If he had not, why did the right hon. Gentleman do it? And what is it we are now expecting the Commander-in-Chief to do? Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that his remark was a most odd one to make about a Commander-in-Chief who is faced with a very difficult situation? Are we not entitled to ask why that extraordinary remark was made?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: We must move on to other things. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) wanted to rise on a point of order. This may be a convenient moment for him to do so.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tried to put a Question on the Order Paper. I am not certain whether it would be proper for me to read the terms of my proposed Question.

Mr. Speaker: No. That would be out of order.

Mr. Shinwell: In your discretion, Mr. Speaker, you refused to allow it to appear on the Order Paper. I shall not give the terms of the Question, although it related to a reference by the Prime Minister, when he was in Ottawa, to the General Election and a possible date. You, in your discretion, refused to allow the Question to be asked. I understand that the reasons are that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that some communication must have gone astray. The Officers of the House, in their discretion, which they have, did not think that the Question was in order and wrote to the right hon. Gentleman asking if he wished the matter to be referred to me. To that, no reply has been received. If the right hon. Gentleman so desires, I will treat this as his notification to me and I will consider the matter.

Mr. Shinwell: There has obviously been some misunderstanding, as no one has written to me on the subject, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I take it that the communication that I understand was written to the right hon. Gentleman has not reached him, but may I treat this as though the communication were deemed to have reached him, that he were deemed to have received it, and to have expressed a wish that the matter should be referred to me, and I will consider it?

Mr. Shinwell: May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? When shall I be permitted to raise the matter with you on a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: I have not considered it yet, but suppose I were to think that the question were permissible no doubt the need would disappear. If I took the opposite view, any time the right hon. Gentleman finds convenient, and is convenient to the House.

Mr. Wigg: But, surely, the date of the General Election, and the question whether it should be announced in this House or in Canada, is not a private matter between you, Mr. Speaker, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)?

Mr. Speaker: On no conceivable basis could it arise as a point of order now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 17TH FEBRUARY—Supply [6th Allotted Day]: Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimates which, if the House agrees, will be taken formally to allow debate on an Opposition Motion on Government Expenditure in the Field of Aviation.
TUESDAY, 18TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Hire Purchase (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY, 19TH FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Succession (Scotland) Bill, and of the Rating (Interim Relief) Bill.
THURSDAY, 20TH FEBRUARY—SecondReading of the Emergency Powers Bill.
Remaining stages of the War Damage Bill.
FRIDAY, 21ST FEBRUARY—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 24TH FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be: Supply [7th Allotted Day]: Committee stage of the Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments Vote on Account, 1964–65, when, at the request of the Opposition, there will be a debate on the Provision for the Ministry for Science.
It may be convenient for the House to know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget on Tuesday, 14th April.

Mr. Brockway: As the Leader of the House is not able to give facilities for my Bill against racial discrimination and incitement, will he, as a little compensation, allow time for discussion of a Motion on the Order Paper, signed by 56 hon. Members, on the subject of religious discrimination in Northern Ireland?
[That this House asks Her Majesty's Government to advise the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the allegations of religious discrimination in the composition of public authorities and corporations and their practices, and in housing, employment and other spheres in Northern Ireland and to recommend appropriate action.]

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will be very surprised if I say that I cannot hold out very much hope for that.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Following on the request made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), if my right hon. and learned Friend thought fit to have a debate on that subject, would he particularly bear in mind that Ulster Members of the House would welcome the opportunity of refuting these wild and inaccurate statements?

Mr. Lloyd: However that may be, I can give no promise of Government time.

Mr. Jay: As it is now three weeks since the right hon. and learned Gentleman promised us a Bill dealing with resale price maintenance within four weeks, can he say whether that Bill will be published next week?

Mr. Lloyd: I see no reason to alter my original suggestion to the House.

Mr. Wade: Will the Leader of the House say whether the promised White Paper on monopolies will be published before the Bill, at the same time, or after it?

Mr. Lloyd: I have nothing to add to what I have said on the matter.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had his attention drawn to the strong dissatisfaction felt on this side of the House with the remarks of the Economic Secretary in the debate on the International Development Association Bill last Tuesday? Will he note that a number of hon. Members on this side are very anxious for a wider debate on technical assistance and development aid to the underdeveloped countries?

Mr. Lloyd: There have been considerable opportunities, but I have also taken note of what the hon. Member has said.

Sir B. Janner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his decision about facilities for the introduction of the racial discrimination and incitement Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), particularly as there has been a difference of opinion in two courts as to whether the words "Hitler was right", with their horrible implications, used by street vendors selling a publication similar to Die Stürmer were actionable? Will he do something to enable the House to consider the question of altering the law so that that type of thing cannot be countenanced by any court?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is really trying to involve me in a discussion of policy matters and matters of construction. I am dealing with the business of the House. In that respect, I am in the hands of the House, but we are facing a period now when, until Easter, certainly, Parliamentary time will be dominated by the needs of the business of Supply.

Mr. C. Pannell: Will the Leader of the House consider a full day's debate on the activities of the Ministry of Public Building and Works? Will he bear in mind that some hon. Members are interested in the threat, or promise—whichever way one looks at it—to pull down the Foreign Office and build something else in its place? We want to debate the proposed Parliamentary precincts. Also, in view of the imminent publication by the N.E.D.C. of the document on the building industry, and its capacity to meet the priorities of any Government—this or the next—does he not think that this is a useful subject for a debate, and one concerning the whole House?

Mr. Lloyd: It may very well be a useful subject of debate, but in view of what I have just said I really cannot hold out any promise of wider debate before the Easter Adjournment. I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, may have it in mind soon to appoint your Advisory Committee to consider the question of accommodation for the House of Commons, which may cover at least part of the hon. Member's question.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the Government, to play out time, have just resurrected some 40-year-old proposals for legisla

tion—however welcome—cannot they also find time in accordance with the same desire, to give full discussion, with a view to early legislation on the lines of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway)?

Mr. Lloyd: I have already given my answer to that. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been careful before referring to resuscitated problems and doctrines 40 years old.

Mr. Wilson: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that he is being funny, of course, there is nothing we can do about it, but is he aware that the continual evading and ducking the question of legislation to deal with racial incitement that he and his predecessors have now been doing for the last three years is not satisfactory to the House? It really is not good enough for him to say that we are now caught up by Supply time. The Government have failed to deal with this matter for three years. Will the Leader of the House now say that he accepts the principle of the Bill, and the principle of giving it Government time when Government time permits?

Mr. Speaker: Not on business. We cannot discuss principle now, or we get out of the scope of business questions.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not think it inappropriate to business to refer to the introduction of the Budget on 14th April, so it is presumably permissible to ask: does that really mean that we are not to have a General Election before that date?

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman must draw his own conclusions.

Mr. Wigg: Will the Leader of the House tell the House whether a defence debate is to take place on 26th and 27th February? If that is so, and assuming that he has read the White Paper, does he not think it an absolute outrage that statements involving the expenditure of large sums of public money are not included in the White Paper, but are to be announced shortly—presumably by the Minister of Defence in the defence debate—so that


the country can be persuaded that defence costs have not risen above the £2,000 million mark? Have not practices of the kind implicit in the whole concept of the White Paper, and the form of its presentation, landed a considerable number of people in Dartmoor?

Mr. Lloyd: My statement dealt with the business for next week. The defence White Paper will not be debated next week, but I think that the hon. Gentleman could draw a possible inference that it may be debated not many days later.

Mr. Wigg: I am asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, before the debate takes place, the House will be told what these projects are, for, as we all know, they cost astronomical sums, or is this information to be reserved until the country and the House have been lulled into believing that the Government have not increased the defence bill, when, of course, they have done so?

Mr. Lloyd: That is not a question on business for next week.

Mr. H Wilson: On business for next week, and so that the defence debate, when it comes, need not be too frustrated by Government obscurantism on the lines mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), would it not be possible, for example, during Monday's debate on Government expenditure on aviation, for the Minister to announce what financial commitment the House is being asked to support, instead of leaving it until the debate? If there is a deficiency, as I understand, in the White Paper, could we not have a promise that during next week's business there will be a statement to make this good?
Referring to a point which I have raised before, and again on next week's business, since we are to have the Succession (Scotland) Bill taking all of Wednesday, would the Leader of the House give priority next Wednesday to the Bill dealing with racial incitement?

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct. Wednesday's business includes not only the remaining stages of the Succession (Scotland) Bill, but also the Rating (Interim Relief) Bill, which is of considerable importance.
As for the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I will, of course, convey the point to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The defence statement issued this afternoon proposes an increase of £161 million a year, which many hon. Members will think excessive even for this Government. May I ask the Leader of the House when the debate will take place? Since this is, I believe, the largest increase in this expenditure ever to take place in a single year in peace time may I ask whether special facilities will be given to the debate on this occasion, for instance, an extension of time?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider that suggestion, but I must stick to my position that I am announcing business for next week and that this time next week I will announce business for the following week.

Mr. H. Wilson: It is about time that we got some of this matter straight with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Is it not a fact that in the statement on business he announces exactly what he regards as convenient to the Government? If he was allowed to announce three weeks ago the date of the Bill on resale price maintenance, four weeks ahead, why are hon. Members strictly confined to the five days under review?

Mr. Lloyd: That is remarkably ungrateful of the right hon. Gentleman. I gave an indication of the time of that Bill only in answer to questions by him and his right hon. Friends, for their convenience and to help them.

Mr. Wigg: Is not the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) strictly a matter for you, Mr. Speaker? What is announced must be in accordance with the rules of the House, and those rules must be interpreted by you.

Mr. Speaker: The rule of the House is that a supplementary question must arise out of the answer, and the answer relates to the business for next week. If an hon. Member can get beyond next week by ingenuity, his success in keeping in order must depend on the degree of ingenuity he attains.

Sir B. Stross: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell, the Leader of the House


announced that it would not be possible to discuss the redevelopment of the Whitehall area before the Easter Recess. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider this, as this is a great ceremonial centre of the whole of the Commonwealth? There is great interest in it and some good might come out of it if we were to discuss the matter in the House.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not disagree with what the hon. Member has said. It is a question of timing. I have already said, Mr. Speaker, that you will be announcing your decision about your advisory committee. That is an important element and when that is announced some progress may be made and there may well be an opportunity for a wider debate.

Mr. Ross: On business next week, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Law Officers of the Crown to look at the statement made last night by the Postmaster-General, which, to my mind, affects the freedom of the House to adjudicate on a Statutory Instrument? If what the right hon. Gentleman said is true, it will be possible for a Government Department to introduce a Statutory Instrument in such a way as to evade the freedom of the House to vote on a particular aspect of it. Will the Leader of the House ask the Law Officers to examine that statement and make a statement to the House next week?

Mr. Lloyd: That appears to be a question on the business of this week, but I will certainly look into the point.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary be available for Questions next week?

Mr. Lloyd: I sincerely hope so.

Mr. Warbey: On the business for 14th April, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will then explain the reasons for the enormous increase in defence expenditure to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred? Will hon. Members have an opportunity before that date of proposing to reduce the Estimates?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will say what he considers appropriate to the occasion.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Titles (Abolition) Bill is to come up for consideration but that before it can be considered it appears from the Notice Paper that the Queen's consent is to be signified? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have tried my best to obtain the Queen's consent through the Home Secretary, but that the Home Secretary has not yet replied and said what advice he has given to Her Majesty? Is it possible that this can be speeded up so that I can obtain consent by four o'clock tomorrow afternoon?

Mr. Lloyd: I heard of the possibility of the hon. Member asking this question. I understand that he is in correspondence with my right hon. Friend and I have nothing to add to that.

Mr. Mendelson: Does the Leader of the House not recall that, when we were under the guidance of his predecessor, several hon. Members demanded, before a previous defence debate, that the fullest documentation be published on the ground that if certain documentation was provided only when the debate took place they would be unable to look at the documents beforehand? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that he will convey to the Minister of Defence the need to publish all the documents well in time before the debate?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly, if any reasonable request is put to me I will convey it to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Mackie: Could the Leader of the House spare the Patronage Secretary five minutes to apply for some by-election writs?

Mr. Lipton: In accordance with well-established precedent, may I ask, although it is not connected with next week's business, whether the attention of the Leader of the House has been drawn to a Motion on the Order Paper relating to religious discrimination in Northern Ireland signed by about 60 hon. Members, including myself, and whether he will find time, if not next week then very soon afterwards, for a discussion of the Motion?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that the hon. Member could have been listening. That point has already been dealt with.

Orders of the Day — UGANDA BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.59 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Tilney): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
On 9th October last year Uganda ceased to be part of the Queen's Dominions though remaining in the Commonwealth. Her Majesty then ceased to be Queen of Uganda. By Uganda law the office of Governor-General was abolished and provision was made for a President to be elected by members of the Uganda National Assembly from among the rulers of the kingdoms and districts in Uganda. The Kabaka of Buganda was sworn in as the first President of Uganda. Sir Wilberforce Nadiope, Kyabazinga of Busoga, became the first Vice-President.
The Bill before the House is consequential upon the Uganda legislation which made these changes in the Constitution which Uganda had for a year enjoyed since her independence.
The House will wish to note that the Government of Uganda have been at pains to avoid using the word "republic" to describe their new constitutional status. Because of Uganda's belief in its well-established monarchies and the traditional respect for hereditary chieftainship, it was considered inappropriate to declare the country formally a republic.
Before adopting the new Constitution, Dr. Obote, the Prime Minister, informed the British Government and other Commonwealth Governments of the proposed changes and expressed the wish of the Government and people of Uganda to remain within the Commonwealth. All the Commonwealth Governments agreed to continue to recognise Uganda as a member of the Commonwealth.
The changes therefore amount to this: Uganda is no more, or less, independent than she was before 9th October last. She is still a member of the Commonwealth. But she no longer has Dominion status. As a consequence, certain of our laws which applied to Uganda as a

Dominion have ceased to apply. The Bill before the House is a technical Measure which is necessary to preserve the operation of our law in respect of Uganda as a Commonwealth country and to make sure that any reference to Her Majesty's Dominions in our law shall be read as if, in effect, the Dominions did still include Uganda.
The House will ask: why so much delay in bringing forward this Bill and why should it be retrospective? We were informed last September of the intention of the Uganda Government to change the constitution. The House was at that time in recess, and there was no opportunity to introduce consequential legislation here We had, moreover, to clarify certain legal points in consultation with the Uganda Government, and the heavy pressure of parliamentary business, as a result of the granting of independence to Kenya and Zanzibar, made delay inevitable. Since then the preoccupations of the Uganda Government and of ourselves with the recent disturbing events in East Africa have imposed a further delay.
Perhaps I might say, before passing from this Point, how much we in Britain have admired the staunch conduct of Dr. Obote and his Government in recent and most trying circumstances. We were glad that we were able to respond effectively to requests for British troops to be made available to help the Uganda Government in the preservation of law and order They will, of course, be withdrawn as soon as their services are no longer necessary. One company of Scots Guards has, in fact, already left. We sincerely hope that the tense situation in East Africa will rapidly subside and allow the Governments concerned to press on with their tremendous task of raising living standards and generally improving the lot of their peoples.
The Bill is drafted to have retrospective effect to the date when Uganda modified her Constitution because there would otherwise be an awkward hiatus in the operation of certain enactments in our own law as they might affect Uganda—for example, the law governing Maintenance Orders. There is nothing sinister about the retrospection. Indeed, this procedure was followed in the very recent Nigeria Republic Act and before that in the Ireland Act, 1949.
I should perhaps once more refer to the nature of the main changes brought about in the Constitution of Uganda by the legislation passed last October by the Parliament in that country. At that time, Uganda ceased to be a part of the Queen's Dominions. The office of Governor-General was abolished and a President elected. The first President is the Kabaka of Buganda, the largest of the monarchical territories within the complex constitutional structure of Uganda. This peculiarity is invoked by the Government of Uganda as the justification for not categorising the new Constitution as a republic. Indeed, Dr. Obote, the Prime Minister, has emphatically repudiated the title of republic, insisting that his country should be known as "the Sovereign State of Uganda".
May I turn to the Bill itself, which follows broadly the provisions of similar enactments passed when India, Pakistan, Cyprus, Ghana, Tanganyika and, more recently Nigeria, became Republics.
Clause 1(1) provides that, as regards the places named in Clause 1(2), all existing laws and, as regards other places to which any Act of Parliament or Order in Council extends, the operation of any such Act or Order shall not be affected as a result of Uganda's change of status. Clause 1(3) gives the whole of Clause 1 retrospective effect to 9th October last year. This is the date on which Uganda's constitutional changes took effect.
Clause 2 gives power to make adaptations to any Act of Parliament, by Order in Council, as appear necessary as a consequence of Uganda's change of status and provides that such Orders or any other Orders varying or revoking previous Orders may be made retrospective to 9th October, 1963.
Clause 3 generally relates to appeals to the Privy Council that are pending. This Clause does not follow the recent Nigeria Republic Act, but returns to the form of similar Sections in the Ghana and Tanganyika Republic Acts. This is because Uganda chose to deal with appeals to the Privy Council in a way similar to Ghana and Tanganyika. The Clause provides for pending appeals to continue to be heard by the Judicial Committee as the result of arrangements made with Uganda.
Clause 3(5) is, however, a departure from the two precedents mentioned. In those cases, the relevant section provides expressly for the termination of all appeals to the Judicial Committee save those dealt with in the section, namely, pending appeals. But Clause 3(5) prevents this Bill from affecting any right of appeal which may continue to subsist under Uganda law.
This provision is necessary as we understand that the legislation in Uganda providing for the recent constitutional changes did not have the effect of expressly abolishing the right of appeal in all cases. We understand that it has been abolished in civil and criminal cases, but it is possible that appeals in constitutional cases under Section 96 of the Uganda Constitution may continue to lie to the Privy Council. This can be clarified only if and when such an appeal comes before the Privy Council or further legislation is enacted in Uganda. Our object is simply to leave the matter open.
Clause 4 is self-explanatory. This is a slight departure from the Tanganyika and Nigeria precedents in order to avoid the use of the term "Republic" which, for the reasons which I have mentioned, would not in this case be appropriate.
Finally, the provisions in the Bill are in themselves proof, if proof were needed, that the constitutional changes adopted in Uganda have in no way diminished the closeness of our relations with Uganda as fellow members of the Commonwealth. Nor have they diminished the affection and respect which the people of Uganda have for Her Majesty the Queen.
I cannot express this more eloquently than by quoting from the speech made by Prime Minister Obote in Kampala on 9th October, 1963. He then said:
I wish to say that our new constitutional form shall not diminish our affection and respect for Her Majesty the Queen and that it is our free decision to acknowledge, accept and cherish Her Majesty as the head and symbol of unity of the free and independent Commonwealth nations.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: We are becoming accustomed in the House to receiving this kind of


Measure. The Bill provides for the normal privileges of Commonwealth membership; as the Under-Secretary has said, that is to continue the special treatment accorded in British legislation to members of the Commonwealth. The Bill ensures that our law will continue to operate precisely as it did before Uganda became a republic.
The Under-Secretary has explained that Uganda prefers to be called a sovereign State and not a republic, and we shall, of course, meet its wishes. But the last time we had a similar Bill before us was on 20th November last, when we did the same for Nigeria as we are now doing for Uganda. In spite of what the Under-Secretary has said, it seems rather odd that the Nigeria Act should have been put through the House three months before the Bill we are now putting through for Uganda. Perhaps the Under-Secretary could give a further explanation for this, because there seems to us to be no reason why the two Measures could not have been put before the House together.

Mr. Tilney: I thought that I had explained to the right hon. Gentleman that we did not hear from Uganda that it wished to change its constitution until September last year.

Mr. Bottomley: It was in November that we put the Nigeria Bill through, and this is very much a similar operation, and I should have thought that it would have been for the convenience of the House and certainly would have saved Government time. Perhaps the Government do not worry about that, so why should I? I am concerned about the convenience of the House. I think it would have been sensible to have tried to do the two things together.
There are, as the Under-Secretary has said, some changes in the Bill compared with the Measure dealing with Nigeria. The one exception in the case of the Uganda Bill shows that there is more concern about the provisions terminating appeals to the Privy Council. On a number of occasions some of us from this side of the House and some speaking from the other side have asked the Government to consider what should be done to make the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council a more attractive Supreme Court than it is at the

moment for those Commonwealth countries which care to use it. It is, of course, no good approaching the question starry eyed. We have to accept that most Commonwealth countries, and particularly the new ones, do not want to seem to have the apex of their judicial system either in London or composed mainly of British judges.
I think that it is time the Government gave some further thought to reforms. After all, it is not as if the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had any function other than as a Commonwealth Court. It does not form a part of the normal judicial processes in this country. The other day the Prime Minister mentioned that steps had been taken to appoint one or two judges to the Court from Australia and New Zealand. The Prime Minister said that the question of a Commonwealth Court was one which should be taken up at the next meeting of the Commonwealth Law Society.
I suggest that this is not the way to get things done. What is needed is some initiative from the Government. We all know that a few years ago it was the Ceylon Government who were pressing the hardest for a Commonwealth Court. So it does not make sense for the Government to try to shunt the matter off to a private body like a Commonwealth law conference. I hope that the Government will do something to push this matter along and take a more active interest in it than they are taking at the moment.
A substantial part of the Bill is due to the provisions in Clause 3 about the mechanics of decisions on the appeals taken to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council before last October. I think that it would be appropriate for the Minister to tell us the background to the complaint by a Ceylon judge a few months ago about the manner in which the Judicial Committee handed down one of its decisions in respect of Ceylon. Was there anything in that complaint and if so, will the Bill avoid those offensive features in the future? Also, we need to be told why Clause 3 goes into so much more detail when that was not done in the Nigeria Act.
I want to take up again a point which I mentioned in the debate on the Nigeria Bill, the fact that monarchic


countries in the Commonwealth do not like to have to get the approval of the Queen for the appointment and receipt of diplomatic representatives. I am, of course, aware that the nature of the relations between the Palace and the independent countries of the Commonwealth is properly a matter for the Governments of those countries. Nevertheless, those Governments, naturally and inevitably, turn to Her Majesty's Government for advice on this kind of protocol. There can be no doubt that in the past our advice has been accepted.
What I want to know is whether Her Majesty's Government have made it clear to these other independent Governments that they can, if they wish, make the appointment and receipt of diplomatic representatives even without the personal approval of Her Majesty. This can simply be done by Her Majesty's local representative—that is, the GovernorGeneral—taking the decision.
I hope that the Minister will not tell us that this is a matter in which we have no locus standi I think that this can be done, and I repeat that it ought to be considered. I hope that we shall receive an assurance that it will be so, because, as I said, I raised the matter earlier in the debate on the Nigeria Bill and I now present it again to the Minister. The Minister knows as well as I do that advice on this kind of protocol is often asked for and certainly given after independence, and what I am suggesting now is that advice should be given before independence so that the countries know exactly where they stand on these matters.
The occasion of this Bill is an appropriate time, I think, to raise a point which has become a practical one since the coup-d'état in Zanzibar. The Bill is necessary because Uganda has ceased to be part of Her Majesty's Dominions, which she was, although independent, until October last year. When a country makes that change, it is common form for it to be accepted again as a member of the Commonwealth by all the other members. I am hoping that the Minister can tell us that that has been done. But if a country becomes independent outside Her Majesty's Dominions, as in the case of Malaya, Cyprus and Zanzibar, then does a

change in the Constitution of that country require fresh recognition as a member of the Commonwealth by the other members?
I do not want to embarrass the Minister. I realise as well as he does that this is a case where the old-established practice of the Commonwealth has to be adapted as we go along. But I think that it is time we had a look at the Commonwealth protocol and considered whether the Bills that keep cropping up and the question of recognition can to some extent be avoided.
This is not the occasion, as the Under-Secretary has said, to discuss the recent sad events in East Africa. We sympathise with the Governments of Uganda, Tanganyika, and Kenya in the difficulties in which they have found themselves. At their request, although it was not easy for our own Government to do so, we sent British troops to assist them in keeping law and order. The Governments concerned have expressed their gratitude for this action. I am sure that you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to conclude this part of what I have to say by adding that it was most pleasing to us all to know that our troops lived up to their traditionally high standards in helping to establish peace and good will in Uganda and those other countries.
I refer now to another rather unpleasant incident which occurred in Uganda a little while ago. The Uganda Government deported several people, including some loyal civil servants, for being involved in a social party of questionable taste. What happened at that party certainly stands condemned, but there was no question of disloyalty to the Government. I myself would not wish to condone disloyalty, or misconduct, or seek to defend any person who, it could be shown, had proved disloyal or misbehaved. Nevertheless, I feel that the Uganda Government should be aware of the effect which their action has had upon expatriates and on possible further recruitment. I recognise that it is a matter entirely for the Government of Uganda, but I do not think that it does any of us any good to act as though we expect less high standards of other Governments of the Commonwealth than we do of our own.
The people of Uganda and the people of Britain feel a tremendous amount of


gratitude and good will towards each other for our past close and continuing association. In expressing the hope of us all that it will remain so, I conclude by wishing the people of Uganda, the new President and the Government a peaceful and prosperous future for their country.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The whole House joins in welcoming the Bill, which shows Uganda consolidated as a full and independent member of the Commonwealth. It shows something else, that Uganda seems to have solved one of the most difficult problems existing in Africa today, since it is combining a traditional monarchy with the modern concept of political parties. The kings of the various ancient kingdoms of Uganda are taking their place within the traditions of the new independent Uganda at the same time as the more modern political parties also play their full part in the affairs of the State.
If this system can, over the next few years, be proved to work, Uganda will, I believe, have done a service to the rest of Africa and will set an example which other countries of the continent may well follow. Often, in discussing Africa in the House, we tend, I think, to underrate the importance of tribal loyalties. These loyalties manifest themselves not only in the high regard paid to the leader, but in political groupings. Unfortunately, so many political parties in Africa are based on tribal groupings. If Uganda can marry the concept of tribal loyalty to the machinery of the modern State, if Uganda can solve this problem, it will have done a great service to the whole Continent. I hope that its example will be fruitfully followed elsewhere in Africa.
In moving the Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said how much he and, I am sure, all of us admire Dr. Obote's firmness in handling the recent sad events in his country. What he did was particularly noteworthy when one remembers that he is the leader or Prime Minister of a coalition Government. It is never quite so easy to handle a coalition Government as it is to handle one composed of one party.
Speeches have been made in Uganda advocating the creation of a one-party State. I think that, when the full facts became clear and the original speech was followed by other Ministerial speeches, one was able to see that it was merely the advocacy of a one-party State and there was no intention of introducing legislation to that end, but I put this question to my hon. Friend. Am I right in thinking that no legislation to alter the Constitution could be effective unless it secured a two-thirds majority in the Chamber, and there are safeguards within the Constitution of independent Uganda which would not allow a political party which had a narrow majority to introduce major changes in the Constitution?
While I am on this constitutional aspect, may I put one other question to my hon. Friend? The official Leader of the Opposition in Uganda is Mr. Benedicto Kiwanuko who, as the House knows, was the first Chief Minister of Uganda. He was arrested a short time ago. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether he has been released, and, if not, whether charges have been preferred against him?
The Bill is a technical Measure and a very complicated one for those of us who have not a legal training. Obviously, it affects law and justice in Uganda, and to some extent it affects Anglo-Ugandan relations, as we are both partners in the Commonwealth. I wish now to spend a few minutes discussing a matter which has already been raised by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley), the incident which has become known as the "Tank Hill party" and the 14 deportations resulting therefrom. I shall briefly outline the events, and then make certain comments and ask one or two questions, bearing in mind that this is a matter of seeing that justice is done as well as trying to do what one can to improve rather than hinder good Anglo-Ugandan relations. I feel that the more the matter is brought into the open and the more rumours both in Uganda and in this country can be squashed, the better will it be for our relations within the Commonwealth.
As I understand it, the events began on 11th December last year, when a party of 200 guests was held in Kampala at the house of Mr. Kelly. It was a


fancy dress party, as had been traditional. The theme was "The White Man's Burden". The previous year, it had been "Hannibal Crossing the Alps". In answering the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, the Secretary of State said that he thought that the party was in deplorable taste. I think that that is strong condemnation. It is, perhaps, easy to condemn these things after they have happened. However, I take it that we should all regard it as lack of forethought and want of taste to hold such a party in the circumstances of the recently independent Uganda, and the independence of Kenya last December. However, it was clear that nothing was intended to be derogatory of Uganda or its people or the people of Africa, and, indeed, nothing derogatory was, in fact, done, though there were misunderstandings.
On 16th December, the police searched the houses of the organisers of the party, looking for tape recordings of seditious songs. They took away certain tape recordings, but I understand that they found no seditious songs. The following day, it was realised that opinion against people at the party and, possibly, against the European community was beginning to run high, and suggestions were made to our High Commissioner that statements should be taken on oath from the organisers of the party so as to get their side of the story. On the 18th the organisers were interviewed by the Prime Minister of Uganda.
The following day, the organisers wrote to Dr. Obote apologising for what they now saw were the unfortunate results of the party, and I understand that the High Commissioner called on the Prime Minister and, presumably, conveyed his own regrets. One really thought that that would be the end of the matter.
Unfortunately, on the same day, 19th December, members of the U.P.C. Youth Wing called for the deportation of the people involved in the party and, on the following day, in a debate in the Uganda Parliament, some very strong and very unfair speeches were made, and it became clear that some of the people attending the party were going to become political scapegoats.
On 21st December, the editor of the Uganda Argus was kidnapped, in spite of the fact that he had not even been to the party. We recognise and applaud the strong action of the Uganda Government in arresting the youngsters responsible for this outrage, who have now been punished according to the ordinary processes of the law. On the following day, Mr. Kelly's house, where the party had been held, was burned down. I understand that Mr. Kelly had been warned that something might happen and that he and his family had left the house. However, the servants in the house only just escaped, and Mr. Kelly's two pet dogs were burned with the house.
On the same day, the 22nd, deportation orders were issued against six people, the organisers and Miss Christine Dove, who was organiser of the Save the Children Fund in Uganda and whose work in Uganda has been praised at many public meetings and in many organs of the Press over past months. I understand that the High Commissioner refused to see the parents of one of the people involved who had gone to ask him what he could do to help. On the same day, the six people were deported and the High Commissioner made a public apology to the Prime Minister of Uganda. On 26th December, eight expatriate civil servants who were in this party were also deported. It is interesting to note that over 30 expatriate civil servants were present at the party, but that only eight were deported. One wonders where the distinction was drawn.
There are some very fundamental questions which should be asked. We all agree, I think, that the party was unwise, even in bad taste. It was meant to lampoon imperialism and was in no way directed against the Africans. No insult was offered and, I suggest, none was proved.
This is the important thing which must concern hon. Members on both sides. I understand that the 14 people who were deported were, in essence, found guilty without any inquiry. I understand that they were never interviewed by the High Commissioner or by a member of his staff while in Kampala between 10th December, when the party took place, and 26th December, when the last of the


deportees left the country. They were not seen off at the airport by the High Commissioner or by any of his staff.
I understand that, since they have been in this country, they have never been asked by the Commonwealth Relations Office to explain their side of the story. They went to the Commonwealth Relations Office, at their own request, to lodge complaints, but they have had no official call or inquiry and no official interest has been taken in their side of the story.
I suggest that it is a serious matter when an apology is rendered in the name of the Government of this country which seems to confirm the wildest allegations made against these young people. It seems to me that the effect on these deportees is almost to confirm their guilt without a full inquiry having been made into the matter.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: We on this side are puzzled to know how the hon. Member relates all this to the Bill. Is it not a abuse of the proceedings on the Bill to make a speech which was supposed to have been made on the Adjournment tomorrow?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not criticising the Chair in failing to do its duty to keep the debate in order.

Mr. Wall: I will not detain the House long. However, I think that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) will agree that these matters concern Members of Parliament if it appears that an injustice has been done and that if, as a result, relations between ourselves and one of our partners in the Commonwealth have been damaged. I agree that this party should not have taken place, but I suggest that the handling of the matter by Her Majesty's Government has made the worse rather than better.
These are the questions that I want to ask my hon. Friend. First, what of the future of the eight civil servants involved? They have been sent back to this country. They are on half-pay. Not only are they receiving half-nay from the Uganda Government, but they are on half-pay in respect of the salary paid by Her Majesty's Government, namely, the inducement pay. One of

the gentlemen, who has a wife and three children, had a pay cheque in January for 47s. 6d. How long is this situation to continue?
What about the future of the six people who are not civil servants—that is, Miss Dove and the five organisers? They are being treated rather like my noble Friend Lord Mancroft in reverse. Are they to have any restitution or compensation? Will Her Majesty's Government use their influence to obtain revocation of the deportation orders? Surely the fact that a severe punishment has been inflicted is bad enough. Will the Government use their good offices to suggest to the Uganda Government that these orders might be rescinded, and that the Uganda Government having shown how strongly they feel about this incident, might now be so merciful as to allow these people to return to Uganda to pursue a useful life in serving the people of Uganda.
Will any compensation be offered by Her Majesty's Government to the 14 or to Mr. Kelly, whose house was burnt down? The Government are rightly concerned about the future of the Sultan of Zanzibar. What about the future of these people?

Mr. G. M. Thomson: On a point of order. I apologise for my previous intervention, which I realise should have been directed to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and not to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). However, may I ask you whether what the hon. Member is saying comes within the terms of the Bill? Should not all this be raised in the Adjournment debate which is set down on the Order Paper for tomorrow, and which would seem to be a more appropriate occasion for it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am happy to accept the hon. Member's apology. The question whether what the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) is saying is in order may well be addressed to me.
As I understand, if the Bill is passed by the House the people whom the hon. Member is discussing could be open to arrest in this country. It would, therefore, seem to me that discussion of their position is very relevant.

Mr. Wall: As I say, I do not want to detain the House long. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dundee, East


does not believe that these matters are important. They are important to 14 of our fellow citizens who have acted foolishly, but who, I suggest, have been treated very severely. I want to know what is to happen to them.
My fourth question is this: who authorised the public apology given on behalf of Her Majesty's Government? Does by hon. Friend realise the effect of this not only on the deportees, but on the British community in Uganda and the widespread effect which it will have in Africa?
In this case, justice does not appear to have been done. I place no direct blame for this on the Uganda Government. They are in a difficult position. They are a new Government and they form a coalition. All kinds of rumours were started which proved to be false. They took action, rightly or wrongly, as they had every right to do. However, I believe that Her Majesty's Government have acted in a way which can only be described as that of appeasement. I hope that the views which have been expressed so forcibly to me by Europeans, not only in Uganda but in other parts of Africa, will be shown by the Minister to be wrong.
I was not in Uganda at the time of this incident and I cannot speak from first-hand knowledge of it, but I hope that my hon. Friend will say that the allegations which I have described are wrong and that he will show that the job of the Commonwealth Relations Office is not only to maintain good relations between Britain and other members of the Commonwealth, but to protect British citizens when it is asked for protection. If my hon. Friend can show this, he will have done a good service to his Department and calmed the fears of many of our kith and kin who are living in the Continent of Africa.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Tilney: By leave of the House, may I endeavour to answer some of the questions which have been raised.
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) said, quite rightly, that it is becoming almost a custom every few months to discuss Bills dealing with different Common-

wealth countries when they cease to be members of Her Majesty's Dominions. He asked me to give the reason for the delay and why we had not put this Bill before the House in November last year. I endeavoured to explain that in my opening speech. There was this somewhat complicated legal point which is left open in Clause 3(5) on which there was quite an amount of discussion between the Government of Uganda and ourselves.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly returned to the question of the future of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He referred to the Commonwealth Court of Appeal, about which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the other day:
There is to be a third Commonwealth and Empire Law Convention in 1965 and the Lord Chancellor is to lead and field…a very strong team. That might be the occasion on which the conference could well reconsider the proposal for a Commonwealth Court, which has been considered before and which would be immensely valuable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1964; Vol. 688, c. 1366.]
However, I think that the right hon. Member will agree that there are a number of difficult problems here. This is not a matter which can be decided quickly. There is a division of opinion on whether, if we get a Commonwealth Court established, it should deal with appeals from the appeal court of the individual Commonwealth country or should merely deal with disputes between Commonwealth countries. We have heard arguments in favour of both.
This is a matter which cannot possibly be decided in the near future, and I should have thought that my right hon. Friend was right in thinking that the Commonwealth and Empire Law Convention was a good body to discuss this matter.

Mr. Bottomley: With respect, I remain unconvinced. I think that this is essentially a task for the Government.

Mr. Tilney: We do not always agree on what is the right thing to do.
The right hon. Member also raised the question of the Privy Council case brought from Ceylon. I assure the House that the implications of the recent case from Ceylon and the subsequent difficulties have been noted by Her Majesty's Government and will not, as far as I can


see, occur in any case coming from Uganda to the Judicial Committee. Only one pending appeal is outstanding.
The right hon. Member also referred to Nigeria. The reason for the detailed provisions in Clause 3, which were not found in the Nigeria Republic Act, is that in the Uganda legislation the question of pending appeals will be dealt with differently from the case of Nigeria. As I said in opening the debate, they follow broadly the pattern set by Ghana and Tanganyika. Hence, we returned to the form our consequential legislation provisions had taken before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked about the safeguards in the Uganda Constitution and the question of a two-thirds majority. This is a complicated matter and I promise to look into it. I am no lawyer and I would rather not go into details now, but I promise to communicate with my hon. Friend.
I know that my hon. Friend has felt strongly for some time concerning the problems that have arisen over the Tank Hill party, which he has discussed with me. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a long statement which was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The party took place on 11th December and on 18th December news of police investigations broke in the Press. The High Commissioner had reason to think that strong action was in contemplation. He at once saw Dr. Obote and, while expressing his personal regret at the offence which the party had caused to the feelings of Ugandans, asked the Prime Minister to take a lenient view, having regard to the youth of the persons concerned.
On 20th December, there was a debate in the Uganda Parliament, which showed how deep was the offence which had been taken by opinion in Uganda. There was a severe risk of violence against those concerned in the party and, indeed, against the British community in general. We have seen only in recent weeks how dangerous the situation is East Africa can become.
It is as well also to remember that the organisers of the party apologised both by letter and by statement. As my

right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 16th January:
in view of the high state of feeling, the British High Commissioner was authorised to express to the Prime Minister of Uganda our regret at the damage caused by his thoughtless episode to the happy relations between the British community and the people of Uganda."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1964; Vol. 657. c. 398.]
There are, naturally, conflicting reports of what took place at the party, but whatever may have happened in detail, the party itself was a serious error of judgment. This particularly applies to the invitation card, about which there can be little dispute. Although, undoubtedly, it was meant to be funny, it can be very difficult, even in this country, always to be sure that one's joke gets over property.
I am a Sasenach and had the honour for five years to be Honorary Colonel of the Liverpool Irish. Quite often, what I thought was a joke, or what the others thought we re jokes, were not synonymous. We all know how difficult it is to have the same sense of humour in different countries cross the seas. Therefore, references to the League of ex-Empire Loyalists, ending the white man's burden, a naked bearer with a cleft stick and a tom-tom with a shrunken head gave great offence.
We are, however, bound to regard deportation as a step of great severity. The High Commissioner conveyed this to Dr. Obote personally as soon as he was able to see him again. At the same time, it must be remembered that feelings were running high in Kampala and there was real danger that those deported might have suffered personal harm had they remained. There was also a risk to the European community generally. The High Commissioner was in constant touch with the Uganda authorities as to the safety of British lives and property.
The announcement of the deportations had the effect of reducing the temperature at once. It must be remembered that deportation is a sovereign act to which any independent Government can resort and which cannot be challenged. I remind try hon. Friend that a number of points which he has raised lie within the sovereignty of Uganda and that it is not in the power of the High Commissioner in Uganda to take action. The safety of British subjects is the job of


the Uganda Government, who are responsible for those subjects who live in Uganda.
I also assure my hon. Friend that the officers of the Commonwealth Relations Office took action as soon as possible to do what they could to help the deportees when they arived, but I have no doubt that the words of my hon. Friend have been noted not only in this country, but also in Uganda.

Mr. Wall: My hon. Friend has explained why, in his view, appeasement was necessary. He has not dealt with the future. Are these people to have any compensation? We are assisting, and rightly, the Sultan of Zanzibar. What about assisting our own people?

Mr. Tilney: I thought I had explained that most of these deportees were servants of the Uganda Government. It is up to that Government. I refer my hon. Friend to what my right hon. Friend said on 16th January in answer to a supplementary question from the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East. At the risk of being accused of facing the wrong way, or being lost in a fog, I repeat what my right hon. Friend said in answer to that supplementary question:
The sooner this is forgotten the better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1964; Vol. 687, c. 397.]
What we want to do is to go ahead with the friendship which has always existed between the people of Uganda and this country.
The Prime Minister of Uganda himself summed up the position in a statement on 13th December as follows:
There is, however, one important point which all the people in Uganda must know and accept. This is that the people deported were not deported because they happened to be British subjects. Our action has not been against the British people either in Uganda or Britain or anywhere else. We have no quarrel with either the British Government or the British High Commission in Uganda over this matter. Our relations with the British Government, the British community in Uganda and the British High Commission remain cordial. We deported individuals for the undesirable part each of them had in the Tank Hill party.
I hope very much that in the coming months that party can get into the obscurity that history may accord it, because what is important is that the future of Uganda and of this country

should run smoothly, to the benefit of both countries, which have been friends for so long.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Peel.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In this short Bill we ask Parliament to make a significant and valuable change in the arrangements for the administration of justice. It will enable a new trial of a convicted person to be ordered by the appropriate authority on the ground that there is fresh evidence in his case. A new trial on this ground will be possible under the Bill where the case has been dealt with by the ordinary criminal courts or by courts-martial. In the one case it will have to be ordered by the Court of Criminal Appeal, in the other authorised by the Courts-Martial Appeal Court or appropriate reviewing authority—the Admiralty, the Army Council or the Air Council.
I will concentrate upon the effects of the Bill on cases in ordinary criminal courts. Schedule I makes provision for new trials by courts-martial and it follows, as closely as Service law and circumstances permit, the provisions in Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill for cases in the criminal courts. It is right that we should keep civilian and Service law broadly in step in this way, as we did in the Administration of Justice Act, 1960.
The idea that there should be some power to order a new trial in criminal cases is not at all new. For more than 100 years there have been proposals of one kind or another for the introduction of some such power, but for just as long a time there has been dispute about the wisdom of doing so. The argument started long before the Court of Criminal Appeal was set up.
Many of those enlightened people who first argued the need for some machinery of appeal in criminal cases wanted it simply to provide a power to order a new trial in appropriate cases, and in the 60 years or so before the creation of the Court of Criminal Appeal no fewer than 25 Bills with that object were introduced, unsuccessfully. But, equally, there were many other people who did not consider this a suitable procedure and, when the Criminal Appeal Act which eventually established the Court of Criminal Appeal was introduced in 1907, it made no provision for new trials.
An amendment to that Act proposing the inclusion of a power to order a new trial was rejected. The powers which Parliament then thought it right to confer upon the Court of Criminal Appeal have remained virtually unchanged ever since. They are contained in Section 4 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907.
On considering an appeal against conviction, the court is required to allow the appeal if it thinks that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, or that the judgment of the trial court should be set aside on the ground of a wrong decision on any question of law, or that on any other ground there was a miscarriage of justice. If the appeal is allowed, the court must quash the conviction and direct the entry of a judgment and verdict or acquittal.
The duty laid upon the court is subject to a proviso that it may however dismiss the appeal if it considers that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred. As a matter of practice, the court has applied that proviso and dismissed the appeal only where it has been satisfied that, on the whole of the facts and with the correct direction, the only proper verdict would have been one of guilty. Inevitably, therefore, there are cases where the court feels obliged to allow the appeal and to acquit the appellant, despite the fact that it may have little doubt of his guilt.
There is one other power in the Act of 1907 to which I should invite the attention of the House because it is specially relevant to the present Bill. That is the power to call evidence. The proceedings before the Court of Criminal

Appeal are not, in any sense, a rehearing of the whole case, but, under Section 9 of the Act, the court has power to hear the evidence of any witness, whether or not he gave evidence at the trial,
… if they think that it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice".
These then were the powers which Parliament gave to the court in 1907.
The decision taken 57 years ago to establish a procedure of appeal without provision for retrial in no way abated the argument about the need of provision for retrial. In the first year that the Court of Criminal Appeal sat, it found occasion to express regret at the lack of such a power. These regrets have been repeated at one time or another by successive Lords Chief Justices ever since—most recently by the present Lord Chief Justice in the "Lucky Gordon" case. Lord Goddard, when he was the holder of that office, was a particular champion of this cause. When the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, was before Parliament he strongly advocated the inclusion of a Clause on new trials.
A new Clause to that effect was moved by an hon Member, now my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council, when the Bill was before this House on Report. The then Government did not feel able to accept the Clause he proposed, but they did accept the principle which it embodied. A Government amendment to provide for new trials was introduced and accepted in another place.
It then became evident that there was still a deep division of opinion on this matter, and in the face of this conflict the Government decided, when the Lords Amendment came to be considered by this House, to move its rejection. So the Clause fell.
The matter was raised again in another place in 1952, on a Motion by Lord Goddard, and later that year my noble and learned Friend Lord Kilmuir, who was then Home Secretary, together with the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Simonds, decided to appoint a Departmental Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Tucker, to make a thorough examination of the arguments. The Report of that Committee, which was presented to Parliament in 1954, showed,


once again, a continuing divergence opinion.
The Committee was informed that the judges were in favour of a power to order a new trial, but only by a small majority: the Bar Council was in favour of a power restricted to cases of fresh evidence, but made it clear to the Committee that its views did not necessarily represent those of the Bar as a whole: the Law Society was opposed in principle to a second trial.
In the light of this evidence it is not altogether astonishing that the Committee itself was unable to reach wholly unanimous conclusions. On the issue of giving the Court of Criminal Appeal an unrestricted power to order a new trial, the Committee was as divided as its witnesses. Three members, including the Chairman, Lord Tucker, thought the court should have a discretion to order a new trial in any case in which the court thought it necessary, including cases of misdirection or other irregularity on the part of the judge or the prosecution. But the other five members opposed such a wide power on grounds of both principle and practice. So it was five to three against the wide power.
In the Report there was all the same, a new and welcome note of unanimity. All the members, without exception or reservation, were agreed upon the desirability of a power of retrial in cases of fresh evidence. This narrowing of the old area of disagreement was significant. The argument about a wider power continues, but it has now come to be very generally accepted that, in cases where an appeal is based on grounds of fresh evidence, there ought to be a power of retrial.
As current evidence of this I need only quote the views of the Committee appointed by "Justice", whose Report was published last month. This committee, like the Tucker Committee 10 years before, was divided on the wider issue, but was in no doubt of the need for the limited power linked to fresh evidence.
It is on the basis of what I believe to be the solid support of legal and public opinion, and on the grounds cogently argued by the Tucker Committee, that I present the Bill. With the leave of

the House, I would like to quote what of the Tucker Committee said in making its unanimous recommendation:
In cases where new evidence is accepted by the prosecution and the court are satisfied that it is conclusive in favour of the appellant their task is, and would be, simple—to allow the appeal, to quash the conviction and to enter a verdict of acquittal. But in many cases it is impossible to assess the value of new evidence without weighing it against evidence given at the trial.
This can properly be done only by a jury who hear and see all the witnesses, including both those who gave evidence at the trial and those whose evidence has become available.
Moreover, we think it preferable that the appellant on whose behalf further evidence has been tendered, should in appropriate cases have the advantage of having the whole of the evidence heard and weighed by a jury rather than that he should be left to seek redress for alleged wrongful conviction by other means.
In such cases as the Committee had in mind, the Bill will provide, with the necessary safeguards, the means by which the whole of the evidence can be reheard by a jury.
Clause 1 defines the circumstances in which a new trial may be ordered. It does not in any way impair the Court of Criminal Appeal's present power to acquit the appellant forthwith if in the light of the fresh evidence it thinks it appropriate to do so. Nor does it affect the duty of the court to acquit if an appeal is allowed on grounds other than fresh evidence.
It is only where the new evidence is the sole reason for quashing the conviction, and where the court is satisfied that the interests of justice so require, that a new trial may be ordered. The offences for which the appellant may be indicted at the new trial are very carefully restricted. They are limited to the offence in respect of which the appeal was allowed, or any alternative count at the original trial on which the jury was discharged from giving a verdict.
That last provision, which is in Clause 1(2), covers the case in which the appellant was charged originally with alternative counts of, say, larceny and receiving. If he was convicted of larceny, the jury may have been discharged from giving a verdict on the receiving charge; under the Bill it will be possible, at a fresh trial on the larceny charge, for the Court of Criminal Appeal to direct that the receiving charge be revived and disposed of. In no circumstances will


there be power to retry an appellant for an offence of which he was acquitted. Nor can he be retried for an offence charged in the original indictment if the jury, in fact, convicted him of a lesser offence; if, for example, he was originally charged with murder but the jury convicted of manslaughter, the court may order him to be retried for the offence of manslaughter, but not for the offence of murder.
As recommended by the Tucker Committee, the power to order a new trial will also be available in cases which have been referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal by the Home Secretary under Section 19(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907. This is automatically secured by the terms of Clause 1, because a case referred by the Home Secretary falls, under Section 19 of the 1907 Act, to be treated as an appeal by the person convicted.
The Tucker Committee also recommended that the House of Lords, when hearing an appeal, should have the same power to order a new trial as the Court of Criminal Appeal. Here again, no express provision is necessary in the drafting of the Bill, because Section 1(4) of the Administration of Justice Act, 1960, provides already that for the purpose of disposing of an appeal the House of Lords may exercise any powers of the court below.
Before leaving Clause I, I should like to refer briefly to the nature of the fresh evidence on which the court may exercise the new power, and to make it quite clear that this will be a matter for the court to decide. The purpose of the Bill is merely to enlarge the powers of the Court when it has decided to allow an appeal on the ground of fresh evidence; it does not, and is not intended to, affect the court's control of its own practice and procedure on the hearing of the appeal.
It will, as at present, be for the court, in exercising its power under Section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, to receive evidence for the purposes of the appeal, to decide whether it is "necessary or expedient in the interests of justice" that particular evidence should be considered. Over the years the Court of Criminal Appeal has evolved principles by which it is guided in deciding whether

to admit fresh evidence on the hearing of an appeal.
The court will not, for example, consider evidence which could have been given at the trial, and it has been reluctant to admin evidence of events occurring after the trial—for instance, a subsequent admission of perjury by a witness—preferring that such evidence should be brought to the notice of the Home Secretary, for him to consider whether there are grounds for recommending interference with the conviction under the Prerogative of Mercy.
It may be that the availability of a power to order a new trial will lead the court to revise the principles which it has hitherto found it necessary to apply. But the court must, I am sure, be left to evolve its practice in the light of experience.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I think that I have understood what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I should like to make it quite clear. Is he saying that the question whether the Court of Appeal is to hear new evidence is to remain in the Court of Criminal Appeal, and that there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that that court will apply wider standards than have been applied in the past?

Mr. Brooke: That is right. The Bill does not interfere with the court's discretion in that matter. If the court wishes to re-examine its principles, that is entirely a matter for the court.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Where does this new principle come from? What the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting is that the judges should usurp our position and become legislators. Judges have never had the power to change the law. The law can be altered not by the judges, but by the legislature. What the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing is judge-made law. Where does that principle come from?

Mr. Brooke: It comes from Section 9 of the 1907 Act, All I am doing is pointing out that the Bill makes no difference to the law in this respect. It may be that hon. Members will wish to consider whether it should, but I am here to expound what is in the Bill and, I repeat, the Bill makes no difference to the existing power of the court.

Mr. Paget: The important thing is that if the existing powers are to be altered, that must be done by us and not by the judges. To say that the judges will proceed at their own discretion to alter their powers and to alter what evidence they will choose to take is entirely wrong.

Mr. Brooke: What the Court of Criminal Appeal does at present is to apply Section 9 of the 1907 Act, and the Bill does not in any way alter Section 9. However, I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Member will wish to speak on this issue later. My duty now is simply to explain that the Bill does not alter the existing law in that respect.

Mr. S. Silverman: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for pressing him further, but I think that there is an error of fact. He says that the existing practice of the Court of Criminal Appeal is the practice laid down in Section 9 of the 1907 Act. This is not so. Section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act has in it none of the limitations which the Court of Criminal Appeal has applied to it over many years. Section 9 says only that the court shall have power to hear additional evidence. It does not say anything about it being new evidence, or fresh evidence, or about it being material, or any of the principles on which the Court of Criminal Appeal has habitually excluded fresh evidence over the years.
It is, therefore, important to say, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said, that the question whether there is to be a change or no change in the present practice after the enactment of this Bill is a question properly for this House and not one for the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Mr. Brooke: All I am saying is that Section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, gives the court a certain power which it has been exercising in a certain way. I am pointing out that there is nothing in this Bill which alters the state of the law in that respect. I feel sure that many hon. and hon. and learned Members will wish to speak on this and maybe pursue it further, but I thought that my task was to put before the House what was in the Bill.
Clause 2 deals with various questions of procedure that are consequent on an order for a new trial, matters such as the venue of the new trial, the custody of the appellant or his admission to bail, and the grant of legal aid.
In Clause 3 there are important safeguards. This Clause deals with the sentencing powers of the new court of trial, in the case of the appellant who is retried and reconvicted. It would not be right automatically to revive the original sentence, as if the retrial had never taken place.
Though the new evidence has not resulted in acquittal, it might afford grounds for the sentencing court to take a more lenient view of the case or the court might want to change the form of sentence for other reasons.
I am certain that a defendant ought not, by reason of his appeal and of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a retrial, to be at risk of finding himself in peril of a longer term in custody than was originally imposed. Clause 3 therefore provides that the second court may not impose a sentence of greater severity than was imposed on the original conviction. The Bill does not attempt to define the concept of "greater severity". It would require complicated provisions to do so and I do not think that it is necessary.
There is a similar provision in Section 5(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, which enables the Court of Criminal Appeal in certain circumstances to substitute for a trial court's verdict a verdict of guilty on another offence, and to impose a sentence which is not of greater severity than the original sentence. I believe that the court has not, in practice, found any difficulty in interpreting this restriction.
Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 3 contain further safeguards to ensure that a reconvicted appellant shall not be put in a worse position because of his appeal. Subsection (3) enables him to count towards his new sentence any time which he has already served under the first sentence, and any time which he has spent in custody awaiting a retrial. Time served under the first sentence will count even though the sentence is changed from one form of custodial sentence to another. Subsection (4) pre-


serves his entitlement, if he has any, to count time spent in custody awaiting the first trial.
I have no doubt that in the course of debate on the Bill we shall traverse again the arguments for giving the Court of Criminal Appeal a wider power. My answer to criticisms that the Bill is unduly cautious is that this is a field in which, I submit, caution is very necessary.
I think that it must be remembered that the proposal for the enlargement of the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal is equally a proposal for the curtailment of the present rights of the appellant; it is a proposal for giving the prosecution an opportunity to start again in circumstances where, as the law now stands, the appellant would get an acquittal. I submit to the House that no change in procedure that may operate against an accused person ought to be made unless it can be shown, and shown beyond doubt, that the interests of justice and the public require it; and here it is only too clear that there is still much doubt and division of opinion.
I outlined the long history of the deep division on this subject among those best qualified to judge of it. Quite frankly, that division is still with us today. It may be that in counting voices we should now, after 10 years, find some shift of opinion towards the view of the minority of the Tucker Committee, but we are still a long way from unanimity.
That is manifest from the Report just published by the committee of "Justice". Though the minority view of the Tucker Committee was now favoured by the majority of the "Justice" committee, there remained four members of the "Justice" committee, lawyers of experience including the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), who stood by the opposite view.
This clash of opinion exists because basically it is a conflict of fundamental principles. On the one hand, it is argued—and the Home Secretary of all people recognises the force of the argument—that justice requires not only that the innocent should go free but also that the guilty should be condemned, and that our administration of justice is defective if guilty men escape on technicalities.
On the other, it is said that respect for the rights and liberty of the people who come before our courts is fundamental to cur system of justice and that it is contrary to this principle that a man should be put in peril a second time for reasons for which he was in no way responsible.
I know it is said that this principle is already breached under the present law in every case where a defendant is retried after a jury has failed to agree. I do not think that this settles the matter. It is no argument for throwing a principle overboard that some exceptions to it are inescapable. But, in any case, there is surely a fundamental difference between the retrial of an accused person in a case where a jury has not reached a verdict, and the retrial of a defendant upon whom a verdict has already been found.
It has also been said that to provide a power of new trial in a case of fresh evidence is to concede the case for a wider power. That I cannot accept. The arguments for the alternative courses spring from quite opposite motives. Essentially, the case for the wider power is that the prosecution should have a second chance to prove the guilt of the appellant. The case for the narrower power is that the appellant should have a second chance to establish his innocence.
I cannot tell, nor can anyone, in how large or small a number of cases the new power granted by the Bill will be used. But its usefulness is not to be measured in numbers. It is in the type of case which now presents the Court of Criminal Appeal with the greatest difficulty that the value of the Bill will, I believe, be proved.
I understand and respect the views of those who would like to go farther. I trust that they for their part will understand and respect the views of those who, like myself, believe that on this unmapped ground we should proceed so far as there is unanimity, but not at present beyond that. The Bill will extend the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal in a way which I think has the clear and broad support of legal and public opinion.
I readily recognise that there are other aspects of the arrangements for hearing


criminal appeals which call for review and maybe improvement. It is more than half a century since the Court of Criminal Appeal came into existence, and with the growth in the volume of crime the Court has been working under increasing pressure. I was, therefore, glad to be able to announce to the House on 14th January that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I had decided that the time had come to review the whole position of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and I think that we have been fortunate in securing the services of Lord Donovan, a former Member of this House, as chairman of the committee which we propose to appoint.
I was also glad to find that in setting up this committee we had the warm support of the Lord Chief Justice, who welcomed the proposal when he spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place.
My right hon. and learned Friend and I will be ready in the near future to announce the membership and terms of reference of that committee. Our intention, broadly, is that it should examine whether all or part of the present jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal should lie instead with the Court of Appeal or with some other court; and, on the assumption that the Court of Criminal Appeal is to continue to exercise some or all of its present functions, to examine its constitution, powers, practice and procedure. I believe that this thorough review will commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It will be able to include within its scope matters which the debates on this Bill show to be outside the field of unanimity.
Whatever may be the arguments about what the Bill does not contain, I feel sure that what it does contain will command general support. It provides a valuable addition to the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal while respecting the essential rights of the appellant. With those words, I commend it to the House.

5.20 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: There will certainly be unanimity on this point:

we shall all look forward to reading the conclusions of the Committe to which the Home Secretary has referred. This House has a high regard for the authority, wisdom and learning of the noble Lord who will preside over it, as its chairman, and hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that there is ample room—and, indeed, need—for a consideration of the whole structure of the Court of Criminal Appeal and, in particular, of the topics on which the right hon. Gentleman touched, namely, whether part of its jurisdiction should go to the Court of Appeal, and kindred topics.
I now turn to other possible points of agreement. So far as it lies in my power, I would advise the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. I say that echoing the words of the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand the Bill, its effect is to give an accused person who has been convicted and who has appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal a further opportunity of showing that he ought not to have been convicted, by having his case referred, on fresh evidence, to another jury. I understand that that is the objective which is encompassed by the limited form, namely, the compromise solution proposed by the Departmental Committee presided over by Lord Tucker, whose majority recommendation the Government have accepted. It is upon that basis that I view the Bill, and hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
There is force in the language cited by the Home Secretary, from page 13 of the Report of the Committee, dealing with the situation in which the accused's guilt or innocence ought to be viewed in the context of the broader body of evidence which may be available. Upon that footing I would hope that the House would give the Bill a Second Reading.
I say that subject to the caveat that it is far from clear from the language used in Clause 1(1) precisely how the Bill will work and, indeed, whether it will achieve the object which the Home Secretary indicated in the words from his speech which I have cited—whether it is properly designed to give the accused person the further opportunity that, speaking for myself, I believe that experience has shown he should have.
The history of this Measure, and especially its passage through another place, has been somewhat extraordinary, in that virtually the whole debate in another place was centred upon the question whether the powers should be wider or should be limited to the narrower compromise form in which they find expression in the terms of the Bill. I find the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman, and expounded fully and most admirably by the Lord Chancellor in another place, infinitely more convincing than the arguments to a contrary effect addressed to the other place by a number of noble Lords, including some Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
I hold a deep and profound respect for the learning and authority of those noble Lords, but I confess that I was wholly unconvinced by the arguments which they addressed to the other place. I thought that the Home Secretary was right when he said that the conflict of view sprang from a rather deeper conflict of principle. Those noble Lords who wished for the powers to be in a wider form, as appears from their speeches, were principally influenced by the consideration that some guilty persons now succeeded in avoiding punishment, and that they ought to be punished. The contrary view, put by the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Chancellor, and which appealed to me much more strongly, is based upon what I conceive to be a very deep-rooted principle in our system of justice, namely, that criminal justice should be fair, swift and final, and that except in the most unusual situation persons should never be put in jeopardy twice upon a criminal charge.
When it is said that in any event that principle is breached when there is a disagreement upon the first trial, I answer—as the right hon. Gentleman answered—that one breach of a very salutary principle does not necessarily mean that other breaches in it are desirable. If there is one unavoidable breach—and many people would be of the opinion that that breach is avoidable, and should not be allowed—namely, in the case where juries disagree, it seems to me that that is a strong reason for doing our level best to avoid further breaches, and that we should not be encouraged to make further breaches. I felt some regret when I read certain passages in the speeches

of some noble Lords in another place who seemed to be wholly unimpressed by any consideration of that sort.
Therefore, I begin by saying that I entirely agree with the view that the Government have taken on the initial problem raised by the Bill, namely, whether the powers should be wider or narrower. I hope that if the matter is raised later in Committee, we shall adhere firmly to the view that we should not extend these principles in any event beyond the degree to which they are embodied in the Bill.
Having made my position clear on that issue, I want to proceed to the other aspects of the Bill, saying, however, that it is not as if judicial opinion were wholly on the side of the wider extension of the powers. There is a remarkable cleavage both of judicial and non-judicial opinion among lawyers and laymen. A very striking division was that to which the noble Lord the Lord Chief Justice pointed, when he informed another place that of 30 judges—he thought that that was the approximate figure of learned judges present at the meeting to which he referred—16 were in favour of a wider form of power to order a new trial and 14 in favour of the narrower form which appears in the Bill. That is a remarkable cleavage of opinion among learned judges whose task it is to sit upon the benches of courts of first instance and be actively concerned with this sort of problem.
But there it is. There is a wide cleavage of opinion that must be recognised. It must also be said that the Lord Chief Justice would have preferred the powers to be in the wider form but felt that it would be inappropriate that they should take that form in view of the very marked cleavage of opinion in the world of the judiciary and of lawyers generally which still exists on that topic.
Leaving that out of account and going to the second question which I adumbrated briefly in my earlier remarks, how in fact is subsection (1) of Clause 1 to operate? I hope that the House will excuse me if I cite from a very learned tonie—"Archbold on Criminal Pleading and Practice", a work of very great authority which I suppose every practitioner in the country thumbs and has cited from on many occasions. I


cite from paragraph 899 of the latest edition a passage which describes the practice which in fact has been followed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in its consideration of fresh evidence in the exercise of its powers under Section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907. It is the practice which learned judges in that court have gradually evolved placing on the relevant wording of the section the interpretation which they think appropriate to it as reported in a very large number of reported cases upon which the practice is based, cited in Archbold, in these words:
It is only in the most exceptional circumstances and subject to what may be described as exceptional conditions that the court is ever willing to listen to additional evidence. One of the requisites to the granting of an application for leave to call additional evidence is that it must be shown that the proposed witness was not available to give evidence at the trial. The other requisite to the granting of such application is that the additional evidence must be such that, in the opinion of the court, it probably would have affected the verdict which the jury returned.
I should have thought that the opinion of a considerable number of people who have reflected on the proceedings in the Court of Criminal Appeal would be that there is perhaps room for a more, shall I say, extensive review of a jury's verdict of fact. Many learned judges, I think, are understandably reluctant, when sitting in the Court of Criminal Appeal, to interfere—unless it is perfectly clear that they ought to interfere—with the findings of fact which a jury has recorded. This reluctance which springs from long experience is easily intelligible, and I make no criticism of it. It is a fact, and I should have thought that practitioners in that court would in general be in accord, that that is the general principle which underlies the view taken by the learned judges in the Court of Criminal Appeal. That is the situation from which one starts, and starting from it, and looking at the provisions of this Bill, I should have thought that it would conduce to a more perfect administration of justice if there were some wider provisions for a direct reconsideration of the conclusions on fact at which a jury arrives.
I doubt whether the ends of the administration of justice are always best served by what I have described as the quite understandable reluctance of a

judge sitting without a jury in the Court of Criminal Appeal to substitute his own opinion on the facts—without actually seeing the witnesses before him—for that which a jury formed. If I support the principles of this Bill it is because it seems to me that subsection (1) seems to move in that direction.
At the moment, as is reported in Archbold, the court is reluctant to hear fresh evidence and only hears fresh evidence where the circumstances are rather exceptional. Archbold goes on to point out that the court will proceed by the principle that there should be an acquittal, as I read the relevant passage which appears in the same paragraph, if the fresh evidence is such that the jury might not necessarily have come to the verdict of "guilty" at which they had arrived, had the evidence been before it. Those are the principles. I feel it is desirable that there should be some easier way of putting before an appeal tribunal further evidence available touching the question of guilt or innocence. I can well understand that it is difficult for the Court of Appeal to constitute itself into a kind of fresh jury and, as it were, to rehear the whole case. I feel that this Bill does what the Home Secretary indicated is its purpose in making it possible for fresh evidence to be more easily heard by saying, "The evidence of a new witness, or two or three witnesses cannot be really evaluated so far as the strength of their evidence goes in the Court of Criminal Appeal as well as they could be evaluated if their evidence is considered in the context of the whole of the evidence available in the case, and that can only be done if the matter goes back to a fresh jury."
It seems to me, therefore, that the effect of the Bill is likely to be this: over and over again a jury arrives at a verdict of guilty. There is other evidence which might have been placed before it which was not, for one reason or another. It is very difficult for the Court of Criminal Appeal to form a clear view, in the first place that it ought to hear that evidence, and in the second place what would have been the effect if the court of first instance had heard it. It seems that the machinery provided for in the Bill will enable the Court of Criminal Appeal in a number of cases to produce a more certain and


fairer result than might be possible under the existing machinery. Because I hope that the Bill will have that effect, I feel disposed to support its Second Reading, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
I do, however, venture to repeat that I think we shall have to consider very closely the wording which has been chosen, when and if this Bill reaches a Committee stage. If I may say so with respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General who I believe is to reply to the debate, it does not seem to me that Clause 1(1) indicates with any clarity, or with sufficient clarity, what it is that has to be established by an appellant when he comes before the Court of Criminal Appeal and indicates that he wishes to tender fresh evidence. Has he, in effect, to do what he now has to do, as described in the paragraph in Archbold which I read out, if he wishes the court to exercise its existing powers under Section 9?
Will he have to show in tendering the evidence that there are exceptional circumstances which make it desirable for the Court of Criminal Appeal to exercise its powers to order a new trial? If he has to do that, I must confess that I do not think this Bill will help him at all. Indeed, it could have the opposite effect. It might mean that in cases in which the Court of Criminal Appeal, if it had heard the evidence tendered on appeal, would as the law stands have directed an acquittal, the appellant will fail. He might be in the position in which he would not derive any advantage if this Bill is passed.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will be able to say that they will look with sympathy on any change proposed to the language of Clause 1(1) which will make it clear that one of the objectives of the Bill is that the rather stringent provision limiting the circumstances in which new evidence can be made available to the Court of Criminal Appeal is loosened so that it may be much easier for an appellant who comes to the Court of Criminal Appeal to say, "There was other evidence which might have been put before the jury. I now wish to support my argument by saying that that other

evidence would have made a difference and I ask the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a new trial".
If the language could be considered with that end in view, I should think that it world be a very valuable provision. I hope that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will be able to say that he will look with sympathy on any examination of the language of Clause 1(1) designed to achieve that purpose.
A number of hon. and learned Members, I know, wish to speak. I have made the points which I wished to make on this Bill and accordingly I shall not continue my observations any longer. I hope that we may give this Bill a Second Reading and resist most firmly any attempt to extend the power to grant a new trial in the sense for which noble Lords in another place contended, and I hope that in Committee we shall subject the language of Clause 1(1) to a very thorough review.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: The Home Secretary in introducing this Bill said that it was a significant and important Bill. Although I would agree with a great deal of what he said, I cannot agree with that remark at all. As drafted, this Bill, only and solely gives the Court of Criminal Appeal power to order a new trial if it sees fit in a case where fresh evidence which has a very technical and special meaning is available and is presented by the appellant to the court.
One naturally asks oneself, "How often will this occur? Will it be a daily matter to make this Bill significant and important? "—and the answer is "No". In fact—I quote the words of the Lord Chief Justice in another place—it will occur about once a year, and it does not necessarily follow that the court in that particular case will consider the fresh evidence of sufficient importance to order a new trial. Therefore, this important Measure which we are considering is neither significant nor important but may in fact result in a new trial in, say, once every two years. I do not, of course, include the question of courts-martial. No one knows how often that would apply because there are no records and no history of it. I should


have thought that the number of times will be so unimportant that this would not apply.
That is the position so far as the Bill as drafted is concerned. Therefore, it is quite wrong to say that it is significant, and quite wrong to say that it is important. It may well be that it came before this House and another place only because of a well-known and notorious case which took place last year. Because in one case it might have been important for a new trial, that is no reason to bring in this very special Bill and occupy the time of the House with it.
But discussion here will undoubtedly and rightly take place, as it did in another place, on the important question of whether this Bill goes far enough. I am aware, as other hon. Members will be aware, that this is a Government Bill and the Government take the view that it should not be extended, and apparently that is the final arrangement. It is unlikely that those who think that it should go further are likely to succeed in getting it amended in that rather large measure during its passage through the House. But that does not prevent hon. Members from expressing their views during the course of its passage.
I entirely agree with the Home Secretary and with the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) that we all await with interest the conclusions of this new Committee under Lord Donovan that has just been appointed. We shall see whether it varies or differs in any way from the previous committees which have sat to consider this vexed and awkward question, and I am sure that if necessary, and if its conclusions are unanimous the Government will introduce a fresh Bill going a great deal further than this trifling and unimportant Bill goes.
I would say a word in answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman before I deal with the wider question of what is meant and understood by everybody as a fresh trial. I agree with what he said, that as soon as there is fresh evidence, provided, of course, that it is possible for it to be believed, and that it is available, there should not necessarily be a new trial. Just think of the opportunities that would be open to an

accused person who says, "I will not call my best witnesses at my trial but keep them for the Court of Criminal Appeal". The test is simple. The evidence must not have been reasonably available before the court below. That is the first requisite. It must be evidence which is relevant because it relates to matters which the jury had to decide and not evidence which was not relevant to the trial. And it must be such as is reasonably credible before a jury. This is the most difficult question of all to decide. Then, of course, there must be a new trial.
One must remember that in the Court of Criminal Appeal, however experienced the learned judges there may be in deciding questions, they are not judges of fact in criminal cases. The onus put upon them is the very difficult one of deciding whether a person, not seen or cross-examined, is likely to be believed by a jury. I hope that no alteration will be made at all in that, except in those cases where these three requisites are fulfilled, before fresh evidence will be considered by the court of Criminal Appeal and considered on the question of whether they shall order a new trial.
Now let us consider the other and much more important question, whether or not this Bill goes far enough. We are not only in this House—although I look around me and see a great many of my professional colleagues sitting there—dealing with the question of crime. The passing of laws dealing with crime and the protection of the public are very much in mind. We cannot hide from ourselves the fact that crime is on the increase, and has been on the increase. One has only to go into the courts where I used to go as a young barrister, the County of London Sessions, where there were two courts and now there are six and the same applies to the Old Bailey and elsewhere. Crime is rapidly on the increase and becoming of a more serious kind. It is not for that reason that we want to get innocent people convicted, but we want to see that guilty people do not escape and go free to commit possibly further and similar, or even dissimilar, crimes.
Let us not forget that all these people that we are talking about in the Court of Criminal Appeal have already been convicted and found guilty by a jury. A


large number of them get off and are acquitted under the Court of Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, because of some technicality which has occurred in the proceedings, perhaps a misdirection by the learned judge or recorder who tried the ease, and it may, in many cases, be of a very technical nature indeed. If that person is entitled after the hearing of the appeal to go free afterwards I can see, speaking entirely for myself, no reason why that should happen. He should be sent back, in my view—I know a good many lawyers disagree with that, just as many lawyers agree with what I say—for trial, and in the case of disagreement there should be one further trial and it should be limited to that.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: Can the hon. and learned Member say why he thinks it should be limited to once only? If the principle is right, why not go on and on?

Mr. Doughty: Because I think it would be a bad practice and one which everyone would frown upon.

Mr. MacDermot: Is not the reason that it is oppressive? If it is oppressive to do it three times, why it is not oppressive to do it twice?

Mr. Doughty: I think the same principle applies as when there is a disagreement by a jury. I think that is about the limit which makes it non-oppressive and anything beyond that makes it oppressive. That is why I say that if there is further conviction by the Court of Criminal Appeal and a further finding of misdirection there should be no evidence offered. I do not think many would disagree with that part of what I have said.
I realise that it would not happen during the course of this Bill, but I should like these views put forward clearly because the suppression of crime is not easy. The new Judges' Rules do not make the discovery and suppression of crime any easier. However, some people may take a different view of that, but I think this is a handicap on the police whose difficult job it is to detect crime. I think that the new Judges' Rules put a severe handicap on the police forces of this country. If the whole lame we are to weight the scales in favour of a person charged with

crime, it is equally important to see that the protection of the public is ensured. That is just as important as seeing that in accused person has a fair trial.
This is a short and trifling Bill, a Bill which in my view—although I realise this is not a view which will be widely held in this House—should be amended so that there is ordering of a new trial in every case where the court thinks that should be done. The proviso referred to by the Home Secretary is so narrowly drawn that the Court of Criminal Appeal can very rarely apply it. That deals with Clause 1 of the Bill.
There is the small matter—it must be a small matter, because of the trifling number of cases to which this Bill will apply—of why a judge in a new trial should be restricted in sentencing to the sentence passed in the court before. If it is a completely new trial new facts may emerge. New facts may be put before the court as to what has happened, yet the judge who tries the case is obliged; to say, "I am restricted by the sentence passed upon you before and therefore I cannot give you what I think is the proper sentence in this case." This is a very small and trifling matter, but equally I think it is a mistake.
I hope I have made my views clear on this matter. I hope the House will feel that it can give a Second Reading to the Bill with a clear conscience, but it is altering but little the law of the land.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: One question which it seems needs to be asked in relation to this Bill is why we have had to wail so long for its introduction. The Tucker Committee reported on 10th April, 1954, very nearly 10 years ago. As we have been reminded, that Committee was divided on the issue as to whether there should be a general power in the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a new trial, but it was nearly unanimous, indeed it was emphatic, as regards the proposal embodied in this Bill.
There was no resistance, there was no one concerned to prevent the enactment of its Report, yet we have had to wait nearly 10 years. We may suspect that


we would not have had the Bill introduced in the present Session but for the Lucky Gordon trial. That, I suggest, is absolutely typical of the way in which the reform of the law has been approached over the last 12 years. It happens again and again. Everyone knows that the law is defective in some particular respect; there are judicial comments representations are made by the Bar Council or the Law Society; an extremely authoritative committee is set up and reports—often unanimously—then a form of Departmental paralysis supervenes and the report is pigeonholed. We do not hear of it again for a very long time. The excuse is always that the Parliamentary time-table is too crowded.
In relation to a Measure of this sort that always seems to me to be sheer nonsense. We could quite easily pass a Measure of this kind in an hour or two of Parliamentary time. We could pass it if necessary by sitting a little later for a couple of nights during a Session. We have had this kind of procedure for the last 12 years, but I comfort myself with the reflection that after the next General Election these matters will be dealt with with far more regularity and dispatch.
I come to the question, which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) and debated in another place, of whether the scope of the Bill should be widened. We are all aware of this fact. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said from the Opposition Front Bench that some very eminent judges—Lord Reid is one and Lord Devlin is another, and I have the highest regard for both—think that there should be a general power to order a new trial. Opinion has been divided, and evenly divided, both on the bench and at the Bar. It is worth recalling that this matter has been considered by this House on two previous occasions, the first in 1907 and the second in 1948. I remind the House of two quotations from debates, because they express very succinctly the reasons why we should resist the proposal for a wider power to order a new trial in cases of irregularity or misdirection.
The first quotation is from the Attorney-General in 1907, Sir John Walters. He is reported in indirect speech in the HANSARD of those days as saying that
To his mind it was unthinkable that they should put a prisoner on a second trial for a miscarriage at the first trial for which he was in no way responsible.
I entirely agree. After all, if there is a misdirection or some irregularity which leads to conviction, that is not the fault of the accused.

Mr. Doughty: I did not wish to interrupt the hon. and learned Member, but it is so tempting. Of course he is responsible, assuming that he is guilty of doing the crime. He is perfectly responsible.

Mr. Foot: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman is doing himself justice. If there is any misdirection, or if there is some irregularity, the fault lies with the court. It lies with the judge, the recorder, the chairman of quarter sessions as the case may be, or it may conceivably lie with the prosecution or be divided between the two, but the one person who is not responsible for the misdirection or irregularity is the accused.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am following my hon. and learned Friend with great sympathy and I agree with almost everything he has said, but will he explain why this principle he is so persuasively defending does not apply also in the case of new evidence? It is on the definition of new evidence that the Court of Criminal Appeal has applied to its finding, the evidence that was not called before because it was not available. The accused is no more responsible for a miscarriage of the facts than for a miscarriage of the law or misdirection. Why, therefore, does not the principle of not putting a man on trial for the second time in circumstances for which he was not responsible apply there, too?

Mr. Foot: I am always willing to give way to my hon. Friend, but I think his intervention was a little premature. I was just coming to the point he has raised. I was on the question of a new trial in a case of misdirection or irregularity. I gave one quotation from what the Attorney-General said in 1907. The


other quotation was from a speech made in another place in 1948 by Lord du Parcq, who had a very wide experience of criminal trials, both at the Bar and on the bench. He said:
I am going to say something which may seem odd, but I believe that on reflection your Lordships will agree with it. It is inevitable, and one might almost say that it is right and desirable that guilty persons should sometimes escape. It is the price we pay for making sure that no innocent person is ever convicted.
Later in his speech he said:
… I would rather run the risk of an occasional guilty man escaping than put them twice in peril. That is contrary to every principle of cur law, of which it has always been a fundamental maxim that a man could not be put in peril twice for the same offence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 7th June, 1948; Vol. 156, c. 395–6, 398.]
That reasoning is just as cogent now as it was in 1948. When there has been an error for which the accused himself is not responsible, we ought not to subject him to the ordeal of going through a second trial.
I come now to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), and which has been referred to in both opening speeches. That is the question of the application of Section 9 of the 1907 Act.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in fact the provisions of the Bill as it stands at the moment will mean that a man can be put in peril for the second time?

Mr. Foot: In a sense, of course, that is correct, but it means a second trial. The Bill is the only way in which we can meet the situation which arises when fresh evidence appears after a conviction. I suggest that over the years an unduly narrow interpretation has been placed on Section 9 of the 1907 Act, an interpretation which I think, with great respect to the judges, is narrower than Parliament originally intended.
What it comes to is this. If it is desired to call fresh evidence before the Court of Criminal Appeal, it must in effect be shown to the court that that evidence could not have been made available at the original trial. I entirely see the force of what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey,

East. It would be intolerable that accused persons or those who represent them should keep back witnesses and then, if there is a conviction, try to bring them forward to give evidence in the Court of Criminal Appeal.
However, there may be perfectly valid and legitimate reasons for not calling a witness, even though he may be physically available. All of us who practise in the courts have had some experience of this. I will give as an example the case of the reluctant witness, the witness who may be able to help the defence but who is very unwilling to come. One can compel his or her attendance. We all know that his is extremely dangerous, and it may be undesirable. Therefore, those who represent the defence may reasonably conclude that they ought not to call the witness at the trial. Then—I have known this happen—the witness afterwards has second thoughts. Having seen the conviction, the witness becomes less reluctant and is willing to come forward and give evidence. This may be a rare case, but it is a case which occasionally arises. In such a case I personally can see no reason why the evidence should not be called in the Court of Criminal Appeal and why the court in such a case should not order a new trial, at which that evidence can be given to the jury, together with all the rest.
I entirely agree with what was said by my hon and learned Friend the Member for Newport. This is a step in the direction of making the Court of Criminal Appeal more of a court of review. We all know that at present it is very rare for the Court of Criminal Appeal to allow an appeal on a question of fact. It must be shown that there has been some misdirection or that there has been something wrong with the trial. One must be able, in effect, to raise a point of law to have any chance in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Even though the court may think that the evidence was of a most unsatisfactory nature, if there was evidence upon which the jury could convict it will not interfere with the conviction.
This principle has been long established in this country. It does not obtain in parts of the Commonwealth. For example, in India there is a trial, admittedly not as a rule a trial by jury


but a trial by judge alone. It used to be a trial by a judge with assessors. In each case there would be an appeal. The appellate court would not have the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. Naturally, it would have regard to the views of the court which did. None the less, the appellate court has not felt itself inhibited from dealing with the facts. It has reviewed the facts again and again.
I myself believe that this country could with advantage move towards the Indian system. It should be the duty of the Court of Criminal Appeal not merely to look for some legal error in the course of the proceedings but also to see whether the facts really justify the conviction. This no doubt will be considered by the Committee to be presided over by Lord Donovan. It is because the Bill is at any rate a step in that direction that I personally hope that it will soon reach the Statute Book.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: As has been said, the Bill gives a very limited power to order a new trial where a conviction is quashed in the light of fresh evidence and on no other ground, and where the court in its discretion considers that a retrial should be ordered in the interests of justice. This means, if the present practice is followed—and we have the authority of the Lord Chief Justice in another place for saying that this practice will be followed—that it is only where three conditions are fulfilled that the matter can be dealt with in this way.
The three conditions are: first, where the evidence sought to be called was not available at the trial; secondly, that the evidence is evidence that it is relevant to produce; and, thirdly, that the evidence is credible evidence, in the sense that it is capable of belief.
I know that other speakers have referred to this, but this is the basis of the matter, The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) referred to this very limited power. It must be borne in mind that one of the learned Law Lords last week expressed the view that it hardly touched the fringe of the general problem and was almost derisory. We have the authority

of the Lord Chief Justice for the statement that the number of cases to which the Bill as drafted can refer is extraordinarily small. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East said that it might be one a year.

Mr. Ede: On a point of order. I have always understood that the only time that Members of another place can be quoted in a debate in this House is when a member of the Government has made a statement in the other place. The Lord Chief Justice, eminent as he is—I do not seek to dispute the weight that has been placed on his views—is not a member of the Government. It would be a terrifying thing if the idea got about, because a statement he made in another place could be quoted in a debate in this House, that he must be a member of the Government.
I have heard three hon. and learned Gentlemen in succession allude to the Lord Chief Justice and bring him in in support of, or in opposition to, the views they have expressed here. I should be glad to know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether I have quoted the rule with regard to quotations made from speeches in another place correctly.

Mr. Weitzman: Further to that point of order. Before you rule on this point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to say that before speaking I took the precaution of looking into this matter carefully. I understand that the rule is that one must not quote directly from such speeches, but that one can refer to the subject matter.

Mr. Doughty: Further to that point of order. I, too, was careful not to quote verbatim. I also understood that one could quote figures and facts given in another place or anywhere else in support of one's argument.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think that a quotation which is not verbatim—that is, an account of a speech as opposed to an exact quotation—does not offend the rules of order, but, apart from that, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was correct in what he said.

Mr. Weitzman: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that upon the authority of the Lord Chief Justice the cases to


which this Bill as drafted can apply are extraordinarily few in number. I wonder why it was thought worth while introducing a Bill in these terms.
In another place there was considerable support for the general question of enlarging the power to grant a new trial by granting unlimited power to the Court of Criminal Appeal in the exercise of its discretion to order a new trial. I am glad that the attempt has failed. Indeed, I press the view that the law as it stands should not be changed and that the limited power provided by this Bill should not be given. Practically all the arguments used against the idea of extending the powers as given under the Bill are arguments which apply with equal force to the rejection of the powers given by the Bill.
It is said that it is wrong that a guilty person should escape. If he does escape it is mainly the result of some technical point—some misdirection on the part of the learned trial judge—hut the Bill does not purport to deal with such a case and, frankly, it is of far greater importance that an innocent person should not suffer or should not run the risk of suffering. Consider what a trial means to an innocent person. He may be on trial on a murder charge or may be involved in a long conspiracy charge taking many weeks. The actual trial follows months of waiting and there is the period of the committal proceedings. Then the jury finds the accused guilty. He appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal on grounds provided for under the Bill. There is fresh evidence and the Court of Criminal Appeal orders a new trial.
It has been said that this power to order a new trial is something given as a favour to the accused. My submission is that it is nothing of the sort. If one gals fresh evidence of such a kind that warrants the Court of Criminal Appeal saying that there is a real doubt about the matter—that there even arises the question of a new trial—the duty of the Court of Criminal Appeal should be to quash the sentence and not to order a new trial.
Consider what happens in the circumstances I have mentioned. The Court of Criminal Appeal orders a new trial. Again, there is the long agony of awaiting trial and the ordeal of the trial itself; and one can imagine what that means to

an accused person. What of the trial itself? Can a trial of that kind possibly be a fair one? The jury may learn—will almost certainly learn in the course of the trial—that the accused has been previously convicted of the charge by a jury. The first trial may have attracted publicity and reference may have been made to previous convictions. Damaging comments may have been made by the learned judge in sentencing the person on the first trial and such matters may receive considerable publicity. The jury on a new trial may have read of these matters and, clearly, these are matters which may prejudice the accused on a new trial.
A further point to remember is, as every counsel for the defence knows, a second trial is in many ways thoroughly unsatisfactory. The evidence is stale, the cross-examination is repeated and loses its sting and the witness is prepared and endeavours to put forward a ready explanation which was not received before. In other words, the prosecution is at a distinct advantage. The defence is at a disadvantage.
I have spoken about an innocent person; and in his case the prospect of a second trial of any kind is an appalling one. But even for a man who is guilty, think of the agony to which he will be subjected to to provide an opportunity to prove that he is guilty. A man stands his trial. If found not guilty that is the end of the matter. If on appeal his trial is shown to be unsatisfactory, unless the Court of Criminal Appeal is certain that he would have been found guilty despite any defect, and they apply the proviso, he should not be put in peril again. To give an example of this: a man tried for an offence where the jury disagrees after a long trials tried a second time and is found guilty. He appeals on the grounds of fresh evidence. Under the Bill the Court of Criminal Appeal may order a new trial and that, in that case, will mean three trials.
I have referred to the publicity that is attendant on the first trial and how it may affect the fairness of the second one. It has been said in answer to that criticism that there is already publicity of the committal proceedings before the magistrates. I had the honour some years ago of being a member of the


Tucker Committee which, years ago, unanimously recommended that such publicity—that is, publicity given to evidence at committal proceedings—should be forbidden; but nothing has been done to implement those unanimous findings. It does not lie in the mouths of critics to say that because that publicity exists there is no danger of an accused person on a second trial being prejudiced because of it.
It has been said in justification of the provisions of the Bill that now as a rule when a jury disagrees there is a second trial. That is perfectly true, and many of the observations I have already made apply with equal force to a second trial in such a case. I have always taken the view that a second trial should not be held when there is disagreement: that the accused should not be subjected to it, and that the very fact that the jury have disagreed shows such doubt that the accused should be acquitted.
The subject matter of the Bill is something over which many lawyers of experience differ. We have heard a number of quotations from previous debates, and I should like to add just two further references. Sir Hartley Shawcross, as he then was, the then Attorney-General, said in a debate on the Criminal Justice Bill in April, 1948:
We must accept the view that occasionally—very occasionally, and subject to great safeguards—there may be some cases in which it is desirable that there shall be a new trial."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 1108.]
At a later stage in the discussion on that Bill he took the view that the difficulty of providing adequate safeguards outweighed any value in allowing the court to order a new trial.
That is still the position. I hope that the House will refuse to give this Bill its Second Reading but, if a Second Reading is granted, I hope that in Committee something will be done about the wording of Clause 1(1) so that it is made clear that the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal are not limited to consideration of fresh evidence in the way they are today; and also that some provision is inserted to show that the object which is said to be the object of this Bill, is to give a further right to the accused person, is made perfectly clear.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The Home Secretary has outlined the earlier history of this matter with complete fairness. It is true that there was a long series of unsuccessful attempts to establish the possibility of a second trial, or a retrial, in the days before there was any right of appeal. I believe that in all those cases the attempt was made only because there was no right of appeal; that the possibility of putting a man on trial more than once for the same offence was never recommended in all those years on its merits. The Bills were a second-best. It was thought that this was a quicker way than getting a Court of Criminal Appeal established. They all failed and, in the end, a Court of Criminal Appeal, with limited powers, was established.
It is true to say that the judges in the Court of Criminal Appeal have ever since been busily engaged in whittling down the rights accorded by the Criminal Appeal Act. They have done it in two or, perhaps, three ways. The first has already been referred to, and I do not wish to dilate upon it. Whereas Section 9 gives the Court of Criminal Appeal the power, at its discretion, to hear additional evidence in order to establish whether "on any ground" there has been a miscarriage of justice, the Court of Criminal Appeal has produced a situation in which, by virtue of its own decisions, it does not allow itself to hear additional evidence unless it can be established that the additional evidence was not available, and could not by reasonable diligence have been made available, at the original trial. I do not believe that our judges have the power to alter the law in that way. It is regrettable that they should have done so.
The second way in which the judges have whittled down the rights conferred by the Criminal Appeal Act is in their treatment of the ground of appeal depending on the conviction being unsound because it is against the weight of the evidence. The Criminal Appeal Act is very clear about this. "Against the weight of the evidence" presupposes that there is evidence both ways, and that, there being evidence both ways, one weighs one lot of evidence against the other lot, and if the balance comes down for acquittal and the jury have


convicted, the conviction may, in a suitable case, be regarded by the Court of Criminal Appeal as unsound and may, therefore, be quashed.
What the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal have done is to forget the words "the weight of"—

Mr. Dick Taverne: I have not the Statute before me, but I think it reads if
… the verdict … cannot be supported having regard to the evidence …

Mr. Silverman: Those are the words of the Act, certainly. The Statute does not use the words "weight of" and my argument is faulty to that extent, 1 agree.
But what the Court of Criminal Appeal has done has been so to interpret the words of the Act as to produce the position that if there is any evidence which, it the jury accepted it, could support the conviction, the conviction cannot be attacked. That was not what the Criminal Appeal Act said, and, although the words "weight of evidence" are not in the Criminal Appeal Act, they have been frequently used in the course of argument in the Court of Criminal Appeal as being an effective way of judging whether the conviction can or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence given.
Under pressure from the Court of Criminal Appeal, resulting from doubt and an xiety—indeed, criticism—about the conduct of a certain appeal, the Government have yielded to the suggestion that, after all, there ought to be given to the Court of Criminal Appeal the power to order a fresh trial. I am wholly against it. The principle that no man should be placed in jeopardy on the same charge more than once is a basic principle in our jurisprudence, and ought not to be disturbed.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) conceded that and, if I may say so, advocated it with great force. He did this in respect of the suggestion that the limited powers of the Bill should be extended and that there should be the power to obtain a retrial, not merely where the ground of appeal is the availability of fresh evidence but where the ground of appeal is a defect in the summing up or some other fault in the trial for which the accused is not

responsible. I think that my hon. and learned Friend departed from his usual rigid logic when he endeavoured to establish a distinction on that ground between defects in the trial by reason of misdirection for which the accused was not responsible, and defects in the trial because the facts were not brought properly before the jury, as though in the second cast the fault lies with the appellant.

Mr. MacDermott: It lies nowhere. In that case there is no fault; a new development has occurred. In the first case there is a fault.

Mr. Silverman: It is true that in the first case there has been a fault on somebody's part, but the accused is not responsible for it. In the second case there may be no fault on anybody's part, but equally the accused is not responsible.
Therefore, if we say that a man should be put on trial for the second time in circumstances for which he is not responsible, I am unable to make a distinction between faults in the matter of evidence and faults in the matter of law. It seems to me a wholly illogical and untenable distinction, and all the arguments which the Government find acceptable and decisive against extending the powers of tie Court of Appeal in this respect are equally applicable to what they propose to do.
Why do they want to do it, and why now? What is the urgency, what is the importance of it? I have carefully read the whole of the debate in another place. I took part in the debates on the same point in 1948. I can find absolutely nothing, not a jot or tittle, not a shred, not a scintilla of new argument on this point. Nothing that was said in the other place had not previously been said 15 or 16 years ago.
I did not always agree with everything that the Labour Government did. There were occasions when I was enthusiastically in support of the Government—on most occasions, I think, in spite of a popular impression to the contrary. There were occasions when I differed, and when I differed I thought it right and proper to say so and to act accordingly Some people may think that some of those ventures were misconceived or ill-advised, but in many of them the House and my right hon. and


hon. Friends ultimately came round to share my opinion. I have no doubt on this point and I can see no reason why having been utterly persuaded by my hon. and right hon. Friends 15 or 16 years ago I should change my mind now or withdraw the allegiance which I then gave. Indeed, there is nothing new about it.
What has caused this? Again, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich gave the answer. He was deploring the failure to implement the Tucker Report in 1954. I do not deplore it. I regret that the Government are acting on it now. I do not think that there is a justification for it. He said that it was the "Lucky" Gordon case that brought to life again this question of discretion. I think that that is true, although it is difficult to see how the ordering of a new trial would have put right anything that may have been wrong, or made easier anything that may have been difficult, in the handling of the Gordon case by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
I have expressed a view elsewhere. I had at one time contemplated putting a Motion down in the House, but I no longer propose to do that and I therefore make no accusations or complaint of any kind about the motives which may have influenced the Court of Criminal Appeal in dealing with that case in the way it did, but I have no doubt that the way it dealt with it had no authority under the Criminal Appeal Act.
I would remind the House of what it did. Gordon had been convicted. Gordon appealed, and the ground of his appeal was that there was new evidence available at the time but not available to him, but this had become available to him. The Court of Criminal Appeal ordered that certain transcripts should be made and certain statements from certain witnesses should be taken by certain police officers, and then the appeal came to be heard. Not a single scrap of new evidence was ever before the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The normal procedure is well-known. One puts in one's new evidence by affidavit and one reads the affidavit to the court. The court may decide that it does not fall within the definition of new evidence and therefore refuses to

do anything further about it, or it may decide that it falls within the definition, in which case the witness is called, gives evidence, is cross-examined. Then, the evidence having been given in that way in public, the court makes its assessment as to whether, if the evidence had been before the jury, the jury would necessarily have still convicted.
Only then, as I understand the matter, is the Court of Criminal Appeal entitled to quash the conviction. In this case it quashed the conviction for reasons which it said were obvious, but which were never explained and were certainly not obvious to me. The evidence could never have been before the court at all, and therefore it quashed the conviction without the evidence being heard.
I do not see how powers to order a retrial could have assisted in that case, and I do not see the relevance of Gordon's appeal to the principle which we are now discussing. I come back to that and ask in all seriousness that the Government should consider what in the world is wrong with the existing practice, what injustice is done, what is the compulsive force which compels the Government to say at this time, in this manner, that we must depart from a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence, namely, the rule that no man should be put in jeopardy twice on the same charge. It is said that this is done in the interests of the appellant. But the appellant's rights are diminished by the Bill, not increased.
What is the present position, if we do not pass the Bill? What has an appellant to do to succeed? First, he has to satisfy the Court of Criminal Appeal that his evidence is new in the narrow, rigid and strict sense of the word and that he could not possibly have called it before the jury at the original trial. It may well be that there is no statutory foundation for these rules of the Court of Criminal Appeal, but they are established rules now and the court would be reluctant, rightly reluctant, I suppose, to alter of its own initiative a long-established practice. So the appellant has to show that the evidence is new in that sense.
He has to show also that the new evidence is relevant or material in the sense that the jury could not necessarily be supposed to have reached the same


conclusion if the evidence had been before it. Even if it is new, even if it is material, the appellant has no right to have the conviction quashed because the court may still apply the principles of the proviso to Section 4. But if all those conditions are satisfied, there is an end to the matter.
In all conscience, which should not it be? How can a second trial in such circumstances be fair? There cannot be a real second trial. A second trial in such circumstances is, of its nature, a different trial altogether and cannot be called a rehearing of the same case. If the case is of any importance, it will have had publicity. The appeal will have had publicity. The jury will have heard about it. The judge, of course, will conscientiously tell the members of the jury to put it all out of their minds and pay no attention to it. This is advice which necessarily has to be given in a number of cases but it is advice easier to give than to follow. Knowing relevant facts, but making certain that they do not influence one in reaching a decision, may be a good judicial principle, but, in practice, with ordinary jurymen or, indeed, with judges as well in many, if not all, cases, it is something almost impossible to achieve. One cannot have a fair trial in the circumstances.
What is to be the nature of the new trial? Is the evidence to be the same as before? Can the prosecution, having heard what the new evidence is and having heard it canvassed and discussed in the Court of Criminal Appeal, call evidence in rebuttal, or is to be confined to the evidence which it called in the first place?
I ask, as was asked by an hon. Member opposite: how often is this to happen? We have all been appalled by certain American cases in which there have been retrials year after year over 10, 20, or even 30 years. There is no Member of the House who would want a series of retrials like that, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. And, in principle, once one accepts the principle of the Bill, why should it be prevented? There may be new evidence at any time, and it may happen more than once or more than twice. If the Bill is given a Second Reading, I hope

that there will at least be an Amendment to ensure that this operation can be performed once and once only, and that thereafter there shall be no further retrials.
I hope, also, that what seems to me to be the extremely clumsy drafting of Clause 1 will be drastically reviewed. I hardly know what some of it means, and I shudder to think what interpretations the Court of Criminal Appeal might put upon it. The Clause begins:
Where an appeal against conviction is allowed by the Court of Criminal Appeal by reason only of evidence received or available to be received by that Court under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907.…
The question has already been asked: under Section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act as it stands, or under the interpretation of additional evidence which has become common form in the Court of Criminal Appeal? Which is it? The right hon. Gentleman said that this was merely a matter of procedure for the discretion of the Court of Criminal Appeal. I cannot accept that view, and, in all humility, I suggest that it is an unsound view.
It should be for the House of Commons, for the Queen in Parliament, to determine what is the nature of the new evidence which will empower the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a second trial, not for the judges, not for the court. Parliament is the sovereign authority which makes our law, not the passing decisions of evanescent judges whose advice on such points has usually been unsound and always illiberal. I hope that we shall have an Amendment making clear what is the nature of the new evidence which the Court of Criminal Appeal is to admit.
The subsection goes on:
and it appeals to the Court that the interests of justice so require …
What does that mean? At present, it is taken for granted that, if a man shows that a conviction is unsafe by reason of new evidence which the Court of Criminal Appeal accepts as making the conviction unsafe, it is in the interest of justice that the appeal should be allowed. It has never been necessary to say so. The Court of Criminal Appeal is empowered to quash the conviction, without requiring any other condition to be satisfied.
If the evidence is the right kind of new evidence, if it induces the right kind of doubt as to whether the verdict of the jury is tenable, then the interests of justice require that the conviction be set aside and a verdict of acquittal be ordered. But under this Clause the interests of justice are not taken to demand as of right and as a matter of course that there should be a new trial. The court has to take something else into consideration. First, it has to hear the evidence. Then it has to decide to quash the conviction. Then, in considering whether to direct a verdict of acquittal or to order a new trial, it has to consider whether the interests of justice so require.
This can arise only in a doubtful case. Therefore, if the court decides that the interests of justice, all the rest having been established, require a second trial, this is a plain indication that in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the retrial there ought to be, the interests of justice requiring it, a conviction. It will certainly be so interpreted by the public, for if the court were satisfied that the interests of justice required an acquittal, it would, presumably, not order a new trial but quash the conviction there and then. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has said so. The mere fact that the Court of Criminal Appeal decides that the new trial is in the interests of justice is itself an embarrassment to the defence at the new trial, and cannot help but be.
Unless an urgent necessity, a compelling state of the facts, urgently requires this alteration of the law, which is a fundamental alteration of the liberty of the subject, we should hesitate long before we give the Government the powers which they seek. Why cannot they wait? Why not wait until the Committee which has been set up to consider the whole matter has reported? Why the haste to rush in with this narrow, controversial and wholly unsound proposal?
I hope that the Government will not ask us to give the Bill a Second Reading but that if they do, they will, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said, give sympathetic attention to the drastic Amendments which would in that case be essential.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I do not wish to repeat the arguments which have already been put forward, but I feel strongly on this matter. I have just celebrated the fortieth year of my call to the Bar. I have never wavered in my view that a man should not be put in jeopardy a second time. I have had strong opinions upon retrying a man when the jury have disagreed. This is a particularly bad practice in a borough or city where a recorder sits, where the jury comes from a limited district and where there is one newspaper which reports that "Joe Buggins", who has been tried for driving under the influence of drink, has got off but is to be retried. It is the subject of comment in the "pubs" and it is not possible to get a fair trial for him on the next occasion.
Every one of us knows that where we have had to take part in a second trial, it is a most peculiar sensation. There is something unreal about it. It is like coming back out of time and saying to oneself, "I have been here before". It sounds almost like a gramophone record asking the same questions in cross-examination.
If I had my way, once a man had been in jeopardy before a jury, once the jury had found that they could not agree, that would be the end of it. That, however, is not the law and the trial must be gone through again. That is my feeling about the matter and it is one reason why I reject any change in the law.
Once there has been the publicity of a trial, it is extremely difficult to get a fair trial. We know the effect of preliminary hearings before magistrates. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will remember the famous Wallace case in which there was great publicity in Liverpool on the opening speech of the prosecution, which occupied a whole page of the Liverpool Echo, in which there were 18 misstatements by the prosecuting solicitor and when the man was not then represented. When I went in as junior counsel, I had all that weight of the whole of South-West Lancashire directed against me. The argument was put, "If he did not do it, who did?" The jury convicted the man.
At the assizes, we tried to protect ourselves from a Liverpool jury, but it was


quite impossible. The jury came from South-West Lancashire. They had had all the publicity of the hearing before the magistrates and Mr. Roland Oliver, as he then was, who led me in the case, said night after night, "I can do no good with this jury. They do not listen." Some members of the jury were actually laughing. This was the result of publicity upon a trial.
In the result, the Court of Criminal Appeal did what it certainly had not done before and what I do not believe it has done since: it quashed a murder conviction given by a jury on the ground not that the conviction was against the weight of evidence—the Court of Criminal Appeal could not do that; it always ruled that out—but that there was no evidence at all, but merely suspicion.
That effect from publicity when a man is on trial for his life often turns a jury against considering the evidence. Mr. Justice Wright, as he then was, summed up in clear terms, telling the jury, though not in terms, that there was mere suspicion and that they would probably think that there was no evidence which pointed one way rather than the other. Notwithstanding this, the publicity had been damning. One gets the same kind of publicity when a man is retired.
For these reasons—and I adopt the reasons given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney North (Mr. Weitzman)—the opinion at the Bar and on the bench is delicately balanced on this matter. I think, however, that members of the public are more in favour of the good old principle that, once a man has been tried, he should not be put in jeopardy a second time.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: In his last two or three sentences, the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) has—certainly not intentionally—incorrectly represented the position. As I understand, the overwhelming weight of opinion is in favour of a retrial and the major conflict relates to the circumstances in which the Court of Criminal Appeal should be allowed to order a retrial. I know of no great body of opinion which is opposed to the

granting of the power of retrial in certain circumstances to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) described the Bill as trifing and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) referred to it as fundamental. On that issue, I have more sympathy with the attitude of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. The Bill, even in its present limited form, makes a basic change in the law by providing for a new trial. It is a basic change which is an inroad into the existing rights of an accused person.
From one or two of the observations made during the debate, one would have thought that the provision contained in the Bill for a new trial on the basis of fresh evidence was in some way conferring a right upon an accused person. In fact, it takes away from him an existing right. It is clear that, unless there is an alteration in the operation of Section 9 of the 1907 Act, in every case in which a new trial is ordered under the Bill the accused person will otherwise be entitled to have his appeal allowed. Therefore, whether the Bill remains in its present form or whether its scope is widened, this is an inroad into the rights of an accused person. The real issue is whether that inroad can be justified in the interests of justice.
I can understand the attitude of the three hon. and learned Members who have spoken and I can understand their objection in principle to the Bill. I do not agree with it, but I appreciate their point of view. On the other hand, if we once make this inroad, if we are prepared to concede that the law should permit a person to be placed in jeopardy for a second time, we should be prepared to extend the Bill to cover not only circumstances of a fresh trial, but circumstances in which a new trial is desirable because of misdirection. To suggest that there is any basic clash of principle in extending the provisions of the Bill is quite illogical. Whether the Bill remains in its present form or whether it is extended, it is an inroad into the rights of an accused person and it also involves placing a person on trial a sec and time. In my view, that


is a course which is justified in the interests of justice.
Uneasiness has been expressed about the attitude of the Court of Criminal Appeal in relation to Section 9 of the 1907 Act. It is clear that the point which those who are opposed to the Bill have made will be met at least in part if a change is made in that regard. It is not a question under the Bill of the Court of Criminal Appeal saying, "We are not sure whether we should quash this conviction and, therefore, let us order a new trial." I could well understand that if the Court of Criminal Appeal were in doubt about what it should do. It will exercise this power only when otherwise it would have to allow the appeal.
It is useful to refer to Section 9, because it is clear that the limitations which have been put on its operation by the Court of Criminal Appeal are not laid down in the Section itself. The words in the Section give power to the Court of Criminal Appeal to order any witnesses who would have been compellable witnesses at the trial to attend and be examined before the court whether they were or were not called at the trial. However, in its application of Section 9, it is clear that the Court of Criminal Appeal has taken the view that it would not consider any evidence except in exceptional circumstances. It has also applied somewhat rigidly the test of whether that evidence was reasonably available at the time of the trial.
This is a difficult matter, and one of the points which will have to be looked at in Committee is whether Clause 1 should be amended so as to lay down in more specific terms the circumstances in which the Court of Criminal Appeal should order a retrial. The Court of Criminal Appeal already has a general discretion in relation to fresh evidence and the interpretation of what is fresh evidence. I should not be opposed to adding to that general discretion specific instances in which it would be required under the Bill to order a new trial. I concede straight away that it will not be easy to draft Amendments to meet that point, but this is a matter which should be considered carefully in Committee.
I do not propose to canvass the arguments for extending the operation of the Bill to cover new trials on the basis not only of fresh evidence but of misdirection. All that I would say is that I am strongly in favour of an extension of the operations of the Bill and I am sure that in Committee we shall have the opportunity of going into all the arguments for and against extending the Bill.
hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and that it will be improved in Committee in the direction that I have indicated.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: I wish briefly to state my reasons for supporting the Bill, particularly as I had the honour of being a member of the sub-committee of "Justice" which recently considered the working of the Court of Criminal Appeal and 'which has made an interim report specifically on the topic of the Bill to which the Home Secretary graciously referred. The sub-committee recommended an extension of the Bill in favour of an unrestricted power in the court to grant a new trial. I was one of the dissenting minority on that point. I think that the Government's proposals are right, and I should like briefly to say why.
As many Members have stated, this is a subject on which lawyers disagree profoundly. I think that they have always disagreed profoundly on it. It is also a subject on which they feel unusually strongly. It is sometimes thought by laymen that lawyers do not have strong feelings, but they certainly do on this subject. The reason for it is simple. What divides us on this issue is what we believe to be the true requirements of justice in the situation which we are considering.
There is a conflict of interest here. Suppose that a man has been convicted by a jury, but there has been some fault in the conduct of his trial on the part of the prosecution or an error in law or in direction on the part of the judge. Let us assume that he is guilty. Some people feel that it is wrong that he should be allowed to get away with it and therefore, naturally, they lean towards favouring an unrestricted power to grant a new trial. Other people—and I am one of them—are moved by


the consideration that to subject a man to a process of trial, particularly a full trial by jury, is a fearful ordeal. If he is innocent, it is oppressive to subject him to that ordeal twice. Once we concede that the person who has not had a proper trial, and who has been convicted by the jury may be innocent, we run the risk, if we grant a general power to order a new trial, of subjecting him to that ordeal twice.
One reason why I am very proud of our system of criminal law is that I think that it is heavily weighted in favour of the accused man. It is more heavily weighted in his favour than under most other systems of law. It is heavily weighted on the declared principle that we think it better that a number of guilty men should get away with it rather than that an innocent man should be convicted. I would go further and say that it is better that a few guilty men should get away with it than that a number of innocent men should be subjected to the oppressive ordeal of a trial.
It is for this reason that I am against the unrestricted power. I hear someone saying that I should be against the Bill completely. This has been the argument of the three hon. Members who have spoken. Why do I draw a distinction in the case in which a person says, "I have discovered fresh evidence"? It seems to me that this is an entirely different category. Any person who is accused of an offence is entitled to claim as of right a fair and properly conducted trial. If he has not had it, if there has been some error made in the way the trial was conducted and he has been convicted by the jury, he is entitled to claim to have that conviction quashed.
However, if he is not able to complain of anything which happened at his trial but has had a perfectly fair and properly conducted trial, with the Crown having called its evidence and he having called such evidence as he could find or as his legal advisers advised him to call, and the jury, nevertheless, convict him, it does not seem to me right that all that should be swept aside and that he should be set free merely because he has found new evidence. There has been no fault on anybody's part. He has nothing to complain of. I think that he has good grounds for saying

that the matter should not be allowed to rest there because a new situation had arisen and new facts had come to light and, therefore, he should be entitled to have the case reopened and reinvestigated. These are the reasons why it is right in such cases to give the court power to order a new trial.
I entirely agree with what has been said by critics of the Bill—that, as it stands, it will have virtually no effect. The reason for this is the extraordinarily restricted definition which the Court of Criminal Appeal has imposed on itself of the meaning, of "fresh evidence". This is something which is not laid down in Section 9 of the 1907 Act but it has nom become firmly established owing to our doctrine of precedent.
I ask the Attorney-General to make clear his view on this matter as a lawyer. The Home Secretary suggested that, under the Bill, the Court of Criminal Appeal in some way will be able 'to reverse the principles it has already laid down as to the meaning of "fresh evidence" and be able to give a much more liberal interpretation to it, granting a new trial in many cases where, at the moment, it would not be prepared to quash the conviction.
As I understand our doctrine of precedent, that is not the way in which the court will work. If we pass this Bill as it is, the only effect will be that, in some of those rare cases where, at the moment, the Court of Criminal Appeal quashes the conviction on grounds of fresh evidence, it will instead grant a new trial. Such cases will be very rare and the effect of the Bill will be extremely slight.
What we want is to make it clear that we intend the court to have an unrestricted discretion, unfettered by previous precedent. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) has drawn attention to a case in which a witness who, under the existing rules, although available, is not called, through no fault of the defendant or his advisers but because he is a reluctant witness who is not prepared to give evidence or upon whose evidence one could not rely as being in one's favour, yet who, when he sees the appellant has been wrongly convicted, comes forward with his evidence.
But there can also be other types of case. There can be the case of a witness who is perhaps not a reluctant witness but who is not called by counsel, in his discretion, because one of the evils leading to the situation which we hope is about to be rectified is that, if counsel is put in the predicament of calling another witness, he loses the last word. Thanks to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), who has introduced a Bill to rectify that position, I hope that this predicament is one which we shall not have to suffer much longer.
Again, it may be that the appellant has instructed a solicitor who happens at that time to be exceedingly busy and has neither the staff nor the resources to make investigations to the extent that the case really requires. In these circumstances, the court could say, "If you had made proper investigations and put an inquiry you could have discovered the witness. Therefore, he is a technically available witness". Surely in such cases the court should not be restricted.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is my hon. and learned Friend saying that there should be no restriction, either, on the right to offer new evidence in the Court of Appeal?

Mr. MacDermot: I suggest that it should be entirely in the discretion of the court to decide whether the fresh evidence is such that, in the interests of justice, it should order a new trial. It is impossible for us to try and lay down definitions and formulae here. It should be entirely within the discretion of the court. All we need is a provision which will ensure that the discretion shall always be maintained and shall not be whittled down again by principles which purport to be laid down by the court, thereby restricting successor members of the court. I hope that the Attorney-General will say that the Government will consider favourably an Amendment on these lines.
A point not mentioned so far arises under Clause 2(5), which suggests that, at the retrial, a transcript of the evidence of any witness who gave evidence at the original trial may be allowed under two conditions. The first is with the agreement of the prosecution and the

defence, and I do not think that anyone would question that. But the second condition worries me. It is:
… if the judge is satisfied that the witness is dead or unfit to give evidence or attend for that purpose, or that all reasonable efforts to find him or to secure his attendance have been made without success".
My anxiety centres on the fact that a transcript can give a wholly false impression of the effect and nature of a witness's evidence. One may have a witness who testifies to certain facts, but who, under cross-examination, while sticking to what he has said, does so in such an unconvincing, prevaricating way that he is shown to be lying—so much so that the jury does not believe a word of it. However, if a transcript of that evidence is read out at a retrial it will look as if the witness, having given his statement, has adhered to it under cross-examination. He may appear to have been a most impressive and convincing witness.
It is true that there are now provisions whereby, it a witness dies, or becomes seriously ill between committal and trial, his deposition can be read out at the trial, although this procedure does not have the evil to which I have referred because, with few exceptions, a witness at committal proceedings is usually not cross-examined. The only result is that his original deposition is read and the jury warned to treat it with great care for the very reason that it was not subjected to cross-examination by the defence, which has not had the chance to challenge it.
That argument would not apply at a retrial under this provision, however, because it would be said, "The witness was cross-examined at great length and adhered to all his answers." I have serious doubts about the wisdom of this provision. This is, perhaps, a Committee point but I should draw attention to it tonight so that it can be considered carefully. Subject to these points, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: The Home Secretary very fairly pointed out that the bench and the Bar were divided on the question of the extension of the doctrine embodied in the Bill. I might add that while the Bar and the bench disagree


upon it it has been known for sons to disagree with their father upon it, and I find myself in that position tonight.
The truth is that I am rigorously opposed to any extension of the effect of the Bill. We know that in some ways this is a technicians' Bill, but we sometimes forget that it is also a question of human beings. I cannot help thinking that, if this doctrine were extended, the effect would be that there would be far fewer appeals, for every solicitor would have to say to every man who was convicted of an offence, and who wanted to go to appeal, "You realise that it may well be that you will have to face a trial all over again." It is at that moment, rather than the double peril, the jeopardy twice over, which has been mentioned, that injustice might occur. Consider the case of a man who has undergone three or four weeks of trial and whose counsel tells him that he might well stand a chance on appeal. Despite that possibility, in many cases he may resign himself to not appealing.
The other point which occurs to me is the question of what happens when a jury disagrees, a question which has been raised by some of my hon. Friends. If the Court of Criminal Appeal decides that a case should be heard again and should be referred to another jury, it is just possible that there might be a balance of evidence strong enough to force the jury to disagree and then, unless the Bill is amended, there might he a game of what one might call judicial snakes and ladders, with the appeal going up to the Court of Criminal Appeal again and then being referred back again because fresh evidence has arisen on the second occasion.
I am not entirely convinced that the Bill as it stands is wrong. I think that there is a case for it, but I believe that it could be favourably amended in Committee. As I have said, I would be very much opposed to any extension of its principles.

7.21 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): I am grateful for the welcome which has been generally given to the Bill and for the powerful support lent to it by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich

(Mr. D. Foot), and the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot). As the Home Secretary said, this is a matter which has been very fully debated for nearly a hundred years, more especially since 1907. In the debate today we have again found a marked division of opinion. Whereas when the Bill was debated in another place last month the principle question was whether the powers of the Bill should be further extended, the principal argument today appears to have been whether the Bill should be passed at all.
I have been keeping a score sheet during the day and I have observed with mixed regret and pleasure that almost every speaker has been a lawyer. The score, so far as the lawyers are concerned, is that three of them are against the Bill, four in favour of it as it stands and two in favour of extending its powers and giving power to order a new trial upon any ground and not merely on the ground of fresh evidence. The only speaker in the debate who was not a member of one or other of the legal professions was in favour of the Bill as it stood, and he was the Home Secretary.
The committee of "Justice" said that it thought that lawyers were particularly qualified to deal with this matter. To some extent I agree, because lawyers have considerable experience of criminals and of the way in which criminal trials are conducted and of criminal procedures, but I am not sure that it necessarily follows that a lawyer is ultimately the best person to judge these matters. A lawyer ought to disentangle the arguments and point out the consequences, but fundamentally one comes back to a position which concerns lawyers and ordinary citizens alike. As the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North said, lawyers are very much concerned in that their sense of what is right and fair and just is involved, but the citizen ought also to consider the implications of a Bill of this nature, because it involves a clash between two principles.
The first is that it certainly is in the public interest that the administration of justice should secure the conviction of the guilty and that obviously guilty men should not escape merely through tech


nicalities. This was the basis of the support given in another place for extending the occasions upon which new trials could be ordered. However, the second principle is equally if not more important and is in direct conflict with that. It is that justice should be swift and that the citizen should not be tortured by a multiplicity of proceedings, nor harassed by repeated trials, and that one should not involve anybody in criminal proceedings more frequently than is absolutely necessary in order that justice should be both done and seen to be done.
It is that clash between those two principles which has produced the disagreement in the House between those who wish to give wider powers in the Bill, and those who wish to stand on the Bill. It is adherence to the second of those principles which has inspired those who are wholly opposed to the Bill and who wish to leave the law as it stands. Whatever may be the consequences in terms of the number of cases affected, this is a matter which affects both the liberty of the subject and the administration of justice, and these must always be important considerations however infrequently they may apply. We have many provisions of the law which are of infrequent application or operation but which are a very important safeguard for the liberty of the subject and the form of law under which we live.
Part of the difficulty of the subject which we have been debating today is that the basis of the difficulty is seldom recognised. It is that the ultimate decision on all facts in indictable criminal offences is committed to a jury, and most people in this country still rightly regard the jury as the defender of the liberty of the subject. It does not matter what the judges think, or what the Government think; it is the jury which ultimately matters. When that is built in as the foundation of our system of criminal trial, one is in an almost impossible position when there is additional evidence which the jury has not had the opportunity to consider.
This is what has created the difficulty and this is the justification for the Bill. When additional evidence becomes available, the choice is not between allowing the judges to try to estimate what effect it might have had upon a

jury, having assessed its worth, relevance and importance, which means that the duty of deciding must be carried out by a court which hears only part of the evidence given orally while reading the rest in a transcript and then trying to make an assessment; and, saying that on questions of fact the jury must be the judge. If someone feels that he should have another chance of establishing his innocence because there is more and better evidence than was available to the first jury, the alternative, and it is the right alternative, is to allow a new jury to reconsider the whole of the facts and the evidence together and to leave in the hands of the jury the responsibility of protecting the liberty of the subject.
The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich thought that the way in which the Bill was introduced was an illustration of the way in which law reform came about, and he promised that a Labour Government would behave in a wholly different manner and that we would have from them floods of reform of every nature. I am bound to say that I was a little surprised considering that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office in 1948 when this amendment of the law was first rejected.

Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that on that occasion his party did not vote and that when the Attorney-General of the day advised the House of Commons not to agree with the Lords' Amendment, everybody in the House of Commons agreed with him, including the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party.

The Attorney-General: They did not take it to a vote, but I think that it was the present Lord President of the Council who originally put forward the proposal which is now incorporated in the Bill before it first went to the House of Lords.
Be that as it may, to complain that this Government do not indulge in law reform is a little harsh when one remembers that in the present Session of Parliament, which is the last of this Parliament, the Home Secretary is going to introduce for the first time anywhere in the world a scheme for the compensation of victims of crime; we are adjusting the administration of justice in London;


we are passing the Police Bill; a Conservative private Member is altering the order of speeches in criminal trials in a Bill, which received a welcome in the course of today's debate; and the Government have introduced a scheme to help successful unassisted litigants who are opposed by assisted litigants.
Since 1959, in the course of this Parliament, 44 Measures have been passed dealing with reforms of the law; 15 of them were promoted by private Members, but 12 of those were promoted by Conservative private Members with Government support. I therefore do not think that one ought to indulge in these polemics, and with a cursory glance at the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich I return to the Bill.

Mr. D. Foot: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain why the Government have been sitting on the recommendations of the Tucker Committee for nearly 10 years?

The Attorney-General: As I have been a Member of the Government for only a short time, I do not think it would be proper for me to contemplate what my predecessors were thinking about during that period.
There is one point which has led to a great deal of debate and has clearly troubled even those who give general support to the Bill. It was raised by the Committee of "Justice", and also by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, namely if the Bill is passed in its present form, what will be the practice of the Court of Criminal Appeal in considering fresh evidence, and to what extent will the C.C.A. be bound by the rules which it has so far laid down before it will consider any fresh evidence?
I am authorised to say that it may be that if this Bill is enacted the court will consider it desirable to review its practice having regard to the provisions of the Bill. I know that that does not go very far, and I propose to elaborate it later. I do not think that it is right to say, at least on matters of practice, that the C.C.A. is bound by the doctrine of stare decisis, and there is authority for the view that, where the liberty of the subject is involved, the C.C.A., at least on points of practice, and probably on matters of substance, is entitled not to

regard itself as bound by its previous decisions. Naturally it pays great regard to its previous decisions, and one would not expect it to depart from them readily, but perhaps I should explain to the House the present position about the admissibility of evidence. It is not perhaps as rigid as one might think, and there is some elasticity in it. There are three rules.
First, the evidence must be evidence which was not available at the trial. There has been a case recently in which a wife wanted to give evidence for her husband. She was available at the trial, but, due to a misunderstanding, she was not called. Because the C.C.A. thought that the administration of justice and the liberty of the subject was overriding, it admitted that evidence, thus showing some appreciation of the fact that there is, and ought to be, some elasticity in these matters.

Mr. S. Silverman: When was that?

The Attorney-General: I do not have the actual reference, but the case was referred to by the Lord Chief Justice in his speech in the other place. I shall try to find it for the hon. Gentleman.
There will arise a difficult question about whether a confession made by third parties which would not be admissible on the retrial, will be heard by the C.C.A. as a ground for ordering a new trial because it may indicate innocence. I remind the House that the law as laid down by this House on this topic is in Section 9 of the 1907 Act which gives the C.C.A. a complete discretion to call evidence before it if it thinks it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice. It is in pursuance of that provision, which is the overriding direction from Parliament to the C.C.A. that the court has up to now, when it has no power to order a fresh trial, laid down for itself some rules which have been applied with some elasticity in considering when it should or should not hear additional evidence.
The last two rules cannot be open to any objection. The first of these is that the evidence must be relevant to the issue. One cannot imagine that a court ought to consider granting a new trial on evidence which is wholly irrelevant to the case. The third rule is that the evidence must be credible, and I imagine


nobody would expect the court to order a new trial on evidence which it does not find credible. That is common sense.
Therefore, it comes back to the first rule which is the only limitation of importance, and that is whether or not the evidence was available at the trial. One can see that if we departed from that rule we would get into the difficulty that an accused person might decide to run one defence and not call, for example, his alibi evidence, and then decide to run an alibi when he gets to the C.C.A. because he wants to try another defence. It surely cannot be held that people should be entitled to claim fresh trials when they behave in that way.
I agree very much with what the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North said about it being impossible for the House to formulate rules as to the circumstances and the evidence which the C.C.A. ought to take into account before it makes an order under this Bill if it is passed in its present form. I recognise that this is a difficult problem. I should like to give it further consideration, and if Amendments are tabled in Committee they will be discussed on their merits. I cannot give undertakings about Amendments which I have not seen and when I do not know what they contain. All I am saying is that I recognise that the anxieties of hon. and learned Members who have spoken are devoted to a point which requires very careful consideration, and I assure the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North that I shall give it that consideration.
There are two Amendments about which I should perhaps tell the House now, as it may be convenient for hon. Members to consider them. The Bill as it stands only enables an appellant in respect of whom a new trial is ordered to be tried either for the offence of which he was convicted at the original trial, or an offence charged at the original trial as an alternative count. It is proposed to introduce an Amendment to cater for a third set of circumstances, namely, where it becomes apparent to the C.C.A. on considering fresh evidence and deciding to order a new trial that the appellant should be tried not for the offence of which he was originally convicted, but for another

offence of which he could have been convicted on the original indictment.
For instance, he might have been convicted of murder. The C.C.A. might think that he should not be retried for murder, but that he should be retried for manslaughter because the fresh evidence indicates that there ought to be a retrial for manslaughter, which, being an alternative, lesser verdict, the jury might have convicted on, but had not done so because it convicted the appellant of the more serious charge. I mention that so that hon. Members who are interested might consider its implications.
The other Amendment concerns the power of the court at the second trial to grant costs. This is a very technical matter. It is thought that probably the court of second trial ought to have a slightly wider discretion to order the payment of the costs not only of that trial but of the previous proceedings, because it will be the court which is sitting at the final conclusion of the matter, and which can review the whole proceedings and take account of all that has gone before.
I entirely concede that, logically, the arguments which were advanced in another place, that we should endeavour to see that accused persons do not escape on a technicality and that justice is done not only to the accused but to the prosecution, have some force. But they have been considerably overstated. Everybody who has put them forward has overlooked the balancing factor of the overriding objection to prolonging criminal proceedings in the case of individual citizens who have to go through them.
It is said, first—and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) said it—that the guilty will continue to escape on technicalities; that the incidence of crime will probably be encouraged, and that the law will fall into contempt. That is putting the argument too high. The Court of Criminal Appeal does not allow appeals in the case of a guilty person unless there is a doubt about his guilt. Even where there has been a misdirection of the jury or some other defect in the procedure, even when the Bill is passed the Court of Criminal Appeal will still have the proviso to


Section 4 of the 1907 Act, and if it is satisfied on all the facts that the only proper verdict which could have been reached by the jury if everything had been done regularly is the verdict which the jury in fact arrived at, it has the power to dismiss the appeal.
Conversely, one cannot imagine that the Court of Criminal Appeal would ever order a new trial where it was quite obvious that the appellant was innocent, or ought to be acquitted, where for example the prosecution had a fatal flaw in some part of its case. Therefore, the area between is the only one with which we are concerned—the case where it is not obvious to the Court of Criminal Appeal that the accused person ought to be convicted, despite a defect, nor obvious that he ought to be acquitted, because of the defect. The Bill is intended to deal only with a situation where there is fresh evidence which either the accused wishes to bring forward or the Home Secretary believes should be brought to the attention of the Court of Criminal Appeal on grounds of public interest.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the Court of Criminal Appeal retain the power to apply the proviso instead of ordering a new trial in cases where there is new evidence? That would seem to be an anomaly, for the Court of Criminal Appeal would be putting itself in the place of a jury in deciding that the new evidence would positively make no difference. That would be further diminishing the right of the appellant. If the Court of Criminal Appeal is not to apply the present position and quash the conviction and order the entry of judgment in the appellant's favour where new evidence has established a doubt, why should it retain the power of the proviso because it has come to the conclusion that there is no doubt?

The Attorney-General: As I understand it, under the Bill the Court of Criminal Appeal will have power to apply the proviso even though there is fresh evidence, but it would apply it only if it were satisfied that the jury would have come to the same conclusion even if it had had that

additional evidence before it. One can appreciate that this would apply only in a very limited field. Perhaps the court would be able to say that the rest of the evidence was so overwhelming that the fresh piece of evidence—because of its irrelevancy, or its smallness, or its unimportance, or its lack of credibility—would not have persuaded any jury from coming to the same conclusion, that the accused was guilty.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is not that in direct conflict with the only ground on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has defended Clause 1, namely, that if it is a question of fact it is for the jury properly directed at a trial to weigh the facts and come to a conclusion on those facts—and that it is not a matter for the judges? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is abandoning that principle in favour of the proviso it is difficult to see what case is left for Clause 1.

The Attorney-General: At first sight that sounds attractive, but is it not the position that the judges, without entering into a conclusion of the whole matter but considering all the evidence, one side against the other, may in a very limited number of cases, at the extreme end, be able to say that even with the additional evidence—owing to its nature; its irrelevance or smallness—the rest of the evidence is so overwhelming—for instance, if there is a direct confession by the accused—it would make no difference?
It may be that to some extent they are entering into the field of assessing evidence, but they are not entering into a field where there is a sharp, direct and important conflict of evidence which might have resulted in the jury's arriving at a different conclusion if it had had the fresh evidence before it. Where there is an important conflict of evidence it is right that another jury should be given the responsibility of considering once again that conflict of evidence.
It is also argued that as we already have retrials where a jury has disagreed, why should we object in this case to having a retrial in the event of fresh evidence coming to light? Conversely, those who oppose the Bill from the other end say that they would not wish for a retrial even in the case of a disagree


ment. They logically follow up that argument by saying that we should not have a retrial even in the circumstances referred to in the Bill.
But remembering what will happen under the Bill and what would happen with a disagreement, one can see that there is a substantial difference. Where there is a disagreement the matter has not been concluded at all. The second jury do not know what conclusion the original jury would have reached. Furthermore, the matter has not been through the Court of Criminal Appeal, and to that extent the fact of having a first trial, going to the Court of Criminal Appeal and then going again to another jury, is something more arduous and more oppressive than simply having a retrial after nothing has happened except the disagreement, when the second jury knows nothing except that.
These distinctions are arguments against giving the right of a retrial even in the cases mentioned in the Bill. We therefore have to consider why, under the Bill, we should give power for a retrial. It seems to me that the criminal law has always adhered to the very strict principle that we ought to confine retrials to the absolute minimum. So far in our law the only retrials that occur arise, first, when there is a venire de novo, which is very rare. It occurs when the first trial is wholly a nullity and the accused has not been at peril at all, and therefore no conclusion has been reached. The second is in the case of a disagreement. The law has always thought it right that a proper conclusion should be reached and that there should be at least one retrial. I think that there is power to have any number of retrials following any number of disagreements, but the general practice of the law is that there is never more than one.
Finally, we come to our present position. The only justification for the extension of the principle that people should never be put through the process of a criminal trial more than once is that it is better that an immediate issue as to fact should come to a jury for decision. It must be for the jury, which is the protector of the liberty of the subject, to decide. It is unsatisfactory to leave judges to hear part of the evidence and consider transcripts on the

other part and then try to come to a conclusion on the facts.
This is the justification for the Bill and the reason why we can take a small step forward. It may be a small step. But I think it right that it should be a small step. It may deal with a few cases, but they are important cases in which the liberty of the subject and the administration of the criminal law are very closely involved. For the reasons which I have advanced, and which have been advanced by other speakers who have supported the giving of a Second Reading to the Bill, I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

INCOME TAX MANAGEMENT [MONEY]

Resolution reported,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to General Commissioners for the purposes of the income tax and their clerks and officers of Inland Revenue and to transfer from the General or other Commissioners to officers of Inland Revenue the powers of assessing income tax and related functions it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament—

(a) of payments to General Commissioners by way of travelling allowance or subsistence allowance, and
(b) of pensions or gratuities to or in respect of any full-time clerk to any body of General Commissioners.

Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

[12th February]

Resolution reported,

INCOME TAX MANAGEMENT (INCIDENTAL CHARGES)

That any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to General Commissioners for the purposes of the income tax and


their clerks and officers of Inland Revenue and to transfer from the General or other Commissioners to officers of Inland Revenue the powers of assessing income tax and related functions may include provisions imposing incidental charges to income tax for any year.

Resolution read a Second time;

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No 90 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MEAT (TREATMENT)

7.55 p.m.

Sir Barnett Stross: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Meat (Treatment) Regulations 1964 (S.I., 1964, No. 19), dated 10th January 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th January, be annulled.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. Let us get this clear. There is first on the Order Paper a Prayer in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross):
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Meat (Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 1964 (S.I., 1964, No. 44), dated 15th January 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be annulled.
Is that not being moved?

Sir B. Stross: The Prayer which I am moving is to be the first Prayer. I was about to ask your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to move them both together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is moving the second Prayer.

Sir B. Stross: May I move the other one formally?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We can have only one Motion before the House at a time. But if it is agreeable to hon. Members the two Prayers may be discussed together.

Sir B. Stross: Then I will formally move the second one.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot do that. He must move the first Motion first.

Sir B. Stross: I am moving the Motion in my name on the Order Paper—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I will make the position clear. If the hon. Member moves the Motion in his name, the second Prayer on the Order Paper—the Prayer in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock—may be discussed with it, but a vote may be taken only on the second Prayer.

Sir B. Stross: That is quite clear, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I will carry on as I began, for the sake of order.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and for the convenience of the House, I should like to be able to discuss the two Prayers together. I understand that you have given a Ruling that if we wish to vote we can vote only on the Motion which I have moved.
The first thing to be noted is that there is some difference between these two sets of Regulations. They deal with the same topic, the same subject and substances axle the Schedule is the same in both instances. The difference lies in the penalties when an offence is created. We notice, for example, in the one referring to England and Wales the penalty for a breach of the Regulations may be £100 maximum or three months' imprisonment, or both. If there be a continuing offence the fine is £5 per day. North of the Border the figure is again £100, but it is possible for an offender to be sent to prison for six months instead of three months, and if the offence continues the penalty is not £5 per day but £10 per day.
We note, further, that should the offence be an indictable offence on conviction the fine may be as much as £500 and the imprisonment may be for a term not exceeding one year. Both penalties may be incurred. If the offence continues the penalty is £50 for each day. So I come to the first question which I wish to ask of the Parliamentary Secretary. How is it that there is, apparently, much harsher treatment for an offender north of the Border than for an offender in England and Wales? The reason may be that it is not the harshness of the treatment against the offender which has brought this about, but a difference of attitude in Scotland towards these matters connected with the health and safety in health matters for their citizens.
Those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee which dealt with


legislation introduced a few years ago relating to slaughterhouses remember that we had many weeks of arduous and close discussion, and that, again and again, it was necessary to point out to the English Minister how much in advance were Scottish customs compared with those south of the Border. At that time we were urging that there should be fewer slaughterhouses so that there might be better regulation over anything done to meat which might spoil it or bring about a disposition of the citizen and cause illness. We showed that in Scotland this protection was available and that there was closer and better control. I am under the impression, therefore, that here the Scots have introduced the stronger and apparently harsher penalties because they are in line with the determination to do everything possible to protect their citizens.
We see that both these Statutory Instruments are simple enough in nature. They make it an offence to sell, consign or deliver any raw—and this is an important word—any "unprocessed" meat intended for sale for human consumption which contains substances of the kind specified in the Schedule. The Schedule contains a list of very interesting subjects with which I will deal briefly in passing and a little more fully later, if I have time to do so. The first one is ascorbic acid, known more commonly as vitamin C. The next one is erythorbic acid, technically known as isoascorbic acid and similar in appearance to vitamin C, but with little vitamin action.
The third one is nicotinic acid, the heat stable part of the vitamin B complex which functions in the body as a substance called nicotinamide. And we say, for good measure, any possible sales of this substance, to prevent anyone finding their way through the Regulations by using some other similar substance not mentioned.
Why have these Regulations been framed? It must be for a number of reasons. We have had outbreaks of illness affecting quite large numbers of people. There was one at St. Albans, a description of which was given on 12th December, 1963, in the Daily Mail. There, about 70 children and 12 teachers became ill after eating a meal in school. Several families were also affected.

About this time, too, there were outbreaks at Deptford and Kensington, and representations were made.
Much earlier, in America it was reported that cases of illness had been noted there. The symptoms that came to light at St. Albans, for example, were that after a meal those who partook of it suffered from flushing, tingling, burning sensations in the neck and face in particular, itching and a feeling of faintness. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has ever had much nicotinic acid, because, if so, he will know that the feeling inside the skull is rather as though a hammer was beating inside it. I want to make it quite clear that everyone recovered from these epidemics. It was made manifest that the cause of the illness was that they had eaten meat dusted with a powder containing nicotinic acid, ascorbic acid and probably sugar, but it was the nicotinic acid which caused the symptoms to which I am referring.
The practice of making meat look red either by preserving its colour, or bringing in a fresh colour—I will deal with the possibility of a fresh pigment being formed in this way later—has been going on for some time. Questions were asked in the House on 16th and 19th December, and in another place. We know that the preparations being used were three in type, two of them British, one called Evered, one called Primox, and one, Dutch, called Salox Red. All are much the same, but there could be variations. If, instead of nicotinic acid, which caused the illness or the symptoms, nicotinamide had been used, there would have been less likelihood of illness.
Three strengths were offered by the manufacturers to those who bought it, and these were described in the British Medical Journal of 21st December. There was a medium strength for allegedly fresh meat, a double strength for imported meat and a weak strength for sausages. I presume—and I think that it must be true—that sausages are still exempt and, therefore, it is still possible for this substance to be used. I think that the Minister was persuaded that the purpose was not to preserve meat. The use of these substances was actually intended to deceive the public, making meat look fresh and red when, in fact, it was not so.
For these reasons we have these Regulations. I think that the Minister must have persuaded himself or have been persuaded here and by advice outside, that these substances tended to conceal the bad quality of meat and to make old meat look less old.
I would mention that in America there had been some cases. In the American Journal of Public Health for 1962 some outbreaks were reported, and they were described as showing, in some instances, severe cases of anaphylaxis, which means shock. Therefore, rather heavy doses of nicotinic acid must have been involved.
The British Medical Journal of 21st December mentioned the minimal amount of nicotinamide that was required. It is quite small—10 to 12 milligrammes—which is quite enough for our physical bodily requirements. Any good diet contains it. We do not need more. It is an essential vitamin.
A very interesting point is that we are dealing with things essential to life, and yet we have to bring in Regulations to prevent them from being used. The reason is that nicotinic acid, or nicotinamide, which is essential to life, is normally available in a reasonable, balanced diet. It prevents a most distressing condition—which is caused in its absence, or if there is a gross diminution of it in the diet—called pellagro, which is found in Africa and, strangely enough, in the richest continent of the world, North America, and in some of the Southern States, where the diet is grossly deficient in nicotinamide or nicotinic acid, and where skin diseases occur, and melancholia, and out-and-out madness. I am told—and I know that this is true, from my own experience—that double the normal daily dose can cause this severe type of flushing and faintness in some people.
What we object to is that the Ministry ever allowed this substance to be used, for it meant that butchers were dispensing a powerful medicine—an essential drug, but a powerful medicine—for purposes not of the best type. They were dispensing it instead of doctors. With the best will in the world, it is not for the butcher to dispense substances which could conceivably be dangerous, and to dispense them irrespective of the public need.
I know that the manufacturers, once they found out what was happening, sent

advice to the butchers, who, in many cases, diminished the strength to one-fifth. I praise them for doing this and for having given careful instructions, but I do not praise them for the motives which made them originally invent this interesting substance. It was not illegal for this to be done. It was assumed that these things were safe and we know that they were effective. Every manufacturer who is interested in the use of additives to food must ask himself three questions. He must say to himself, "Is this stuff really harmless?" Then he must say, "Is it legally permitted?" Thirdly, he must ask. "Is it effective in use?"
When he asks himself whether it is harmless, he sometimes makes a mistake. This, I think, is the fault of the Ministry. "Harmless" is not quite the same as saying that there is no evidence that it has as yet done harm. "Harmless" should mean in the eyes of the Minister and his Department that there is ample evidence that it cannot do harm, whereas, in fact, we know that we have a permitted substance which is essential to life in proper amounts in our diet, but which, through an overdose, can do harm.
This has been quite a tricky business. Colour in meat is due to two closely-related slit stances, one of which is found in the blood which we call hæmoglobin and one in the muscle which we call myoglobin In the first there is an atom of iron attached to the globin part which has a protein molecule. Normally, when an animal is killed the meat will respire and go on discharging carbon monoxide for many days. Even if it is cut up into small pieces respiration will continue, but less so, I am advised, if it is minced into very tiny pieces. If the oxygen is linked fully to the atom of iron, one gets a red colour. If it is lost, or partially lost, we get either a purple colour, or, if there is incomplete oxidisation, the iron will become brown like rusty iron.
Brown colour in fresh meat is not desirable. The chemists found this interesting method of making the meat look red again, as if it were prime meat. They found it convenient for a number of reasons. I think that those reasons were essentially commercial and because the meat was easier to sell.
Before I leave this business of colour I ought to say a word or two about the sausage, which, I believe, is to be exempt from these Regulations. Inside the sausage certain things happen.

Mr. William Ross: Things usually happen when the sausage is inside someone.

Sir B. Stross: Before it is cooked it still releases oxygen, or can release oxygen. At the same time, the surrounding air can percolate through the skin of the sausage and get to the meat, but that does not happen enough to cause full oxidisation. Therefore, there is a tendency, unless something is done to disguise the sausage, for the meat to look brown, or dark purple. It was discovered that with these substances mentioned in the Schedule, ascorbic acid, nicotine acid, or nicotinamide one can help to colour and preserve the meat. In the use of nicotinic acid a new colour is formed, which is a red pigment, which, together with ascorbic acid, makes it remain red.
That is the way in which the clever chemists have been able to deceive us all. For months, as I passed a butcher's shop in Kensington and saw entrancing sausages and minced meat, all of a wonderful colour, I thought "He must be a wonderful butcher. How fresh and red his meat is!" Having done my homework on these Regulations I have to conclude that he must have dusted his meat with powder containing vitamins and sugar.
I do not want to make too much of this matter. It would be a mistake to do so, because, after all, there is no evidence that anyone can take an overdose of ascorbic acid. An hon. Lady Member of the House laughed at me when I advised her to take for a cold 200 milligrams. She thought it nonsense and took 1,000 milligrams. The normal daily requirement is 30 milligrams. The excess is very quickly excreted and we have no evidence that it does harm. Moreover, erythorbic acid has little or no action, but it helps to produce this deceiving colour. They are plain deceivers.
We know that it was legal, because it was specifically excluded from the preservative and anti-oxident regulations

of the Food and Drugs Act. Normally, one could use 1 per cent. and it had to be at a refrigerated temperature. At a higher or lower temperature it does not work and one gets a wrong colour. Erythorbic acid is found in yeast and liver and to a lesser extent in lean meat and some vegetables, such as potatoes. It is part of the vitamin B complex and we must have it to live healthily, but in excess it creates unhappy, miserable symptoms. Some people have been made thoroughly ill by it.
Clinically, it has been used to try to cure chilblains with, I think, little success and with better success it has been used in cases of frostbite. It has been used even for severe headache and migraine, with what success I do not know. It would be a mistake to think of it in terms of a poison, for relatively it is not toxic. It produces these unhappy symptoms, but big doses can create rigors. A catastrophe can occur if someone takes much to big a dose.
I ask four questions in addition to the one I asked about which Scotland is so much more progressive than we are in England. Why was there some serious delay after we had information? I believe that the reports were coming through throughout the autumn as a result of epidemics or attacks of illness. We had the information over a year ago from the United States. Why is it that only raw and unprocessed meat is to be freed from these substances? Does this mean that they or similar substances can be used on cooked meat? There is nothing in these Regulations to prevent cooked meat being so treated, or any compounded substance—that means a sausage and meat so treated that it is substantially changed. The definition of "processed" in these Regulations makes this quite clear and I should like an answer to that question.
Thirdly, why have artificial colours not been included in these Regulations? I cannot make much of this for that would be wrong and probably not in order, but we know that we are demanding and have kept demanding for a long time—certainly I have for many years—that we should have from the Minister a scheduled pharmacopaeia of substances which may be permissibly used. After many years of discussion of these matters we have a form of schedule.


There is a permitted list, but I suggest that it is not carefully enough framed.
This example, when we are trying to annul these Regulations, proves that apparently innocent substances can create damage. The sausage can still be treated with these substances and normally, especially if it is a beef sausage, it is treated with a coal tar dye derivative. It is time this sort of thing was looked at again.
I know that some of these things are said to be innocent, because no harm has been proved up to date in the amounts to which we are subjected. That is not a very scientific or proper way of looking at the subject. We have asked that there should be regulations to support these Regulations so that even the sausage shall become an innocent piece of diet in every sense of the term.
We feel that it is a mistake to wait for anyone to fall ill and then threaten those who have, quite innocently, produced something to make a food look attractive. We should have warned people earlier that it would not be possible to do this. Then the chemists, the inventors, the butchers and certainly our citizens would not have been in this situation. We should not wait until we have to punish, or threaten punishment, but should have an admitted list which will, as far as possible, prevent any accidents of this type.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: When I studied these Regulations, I noticed some differences and came to this debate with the intention of querying them. After listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross) I am rather sorry that I came, because I now wonder whether it is safe to eat anything. What can be done to unprocessed meat is most frightening.
My hon. Friend mentioned additives which make meat look better. These do not improve the quality of the product. Do what they will, the chemists and the scientists cannot make the meat of an old cow taste as good as that of a maiden heifer. I hope that the Government will take strong action against meat traders who try to deceive the housewives by adding to the product something which does not increase its

value as a food but merely alters its appearance.
I am not a medical man. Having listened to my hon. Friend, I am rather glad I am not, because his description of what can happen to one's body rather frightened me. Certainly, his descriptions have reinforced my belief that we should prevent scurrilous forms of advertising and the use of additives whereby people are deceived into thinking that they are buying a superior product which, in fact, has not been improved at all. My hon. Friend says that some dyes are quite harmless, but, nevertheless, it is dishonest to colour a product in order to convince the consumer that it is superior.
I remember an incident years ago. I saw a butcher making sausages. The first to come out of the machine were hung in the window at 8d. per lb. He then manipulated more out of the machine, using the same type of meat, dressed them in a little parsley and placed them on a tray in the window at 1s. a lb. When a customer came in for sausages he asked whether she wanted the best. Naturally, she would say "Yes" The only difference between "best" and the others was that the "best" were dressed with parsley and the others were not.
That sort of thing is deceit of the public and I am glad that the Government have at last taken some action to prevent the use of additives which improve appearance but not quality. Ladies have always used additives to improve their appearance and we males are delighted. But do not let that be done with meat. It is a most dangerous thing to do
One difference I notice between the two sets of Regulations is that, in Scotland, a butcher or purveyor of meat will be liable to a fine of £10 for every day during which he engages in this practice, whereas the fine in England will be only £5 a day. Why the difference? Scottish beef is the finest in the world and anyone who tampers with it should pay the penalty, but I see no reason why a Scottish purveyor of meat should have to pay a fine of £10 while a Sassenach, for committing the same offence, should pay only £5 The Regulations applying to Scotland mention a fine not exceeding £100 or imprisonment for six months, or both. The Regulations applying to


England mention imprisonment for only three months. Why the difference?
Scottish beef is sold in London and to tamper with it there is as serious as tampering with it in Glasgow. Legislation passed recently has appeared to discriminate between the two countries and although we in Scotland are hardier, stronger and more virile, I do not see why larger penalties should be applied to Scotland. It is worth remembering that when any money is going we are always at the bottom of the queue; but when penalties are being imposed, harsher standards of punishment are applied to Scotland.
I am not saying that Scottish beef is the only good beef—just that it is about the best in the world. The other day I saw some French beef, from a 12month-old steer of a Charollais-Friesian cross. It was wonderful beef. Why have the Scottish Office allowed the Scottish trader to bear this double punishment compared with his counterpart in England and Wales?
Since speaking I have recovered my confidence in food generally and although I felt at the beginning of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that I would become a vegetarian, I have since decided that I will go on eating meat, just as I have in the past.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I support my hon. Friends in questioning this Statutory Instrument. The House may recall that it was in answer to a Question of mine last December that these Regulations were imposed. [Hon. Members "Oh."] Perhaps I should say that my Question preceded their imposition. If I do not have a fraternal interest, I may be said to have a step-fraternal interest in them.
We live in a world in which more and more synthetic foods are coming into existence. This trend has been noticeable for more than half a century. Indeed, "Saki" in one of his stories written about 1910 envisaged a state of society in which every Englishman was eating a synthetic breakfast food called "Filboy Sludge", which was so terrible that only an Englishman, with his tremendous sense of duty, could be induced to eat it.
Today the trend is moving further towards synthetic foods. We not only have synthetic breakfast foods, but also what may be described as synthetic meats. We have grown accustomed to broiler fowls which taste like a mixture of blotting paper and octopus—not that I have tasted either. We are more and more coming to lose the flavour and enjoyment of our food. This in itself is bad enough, but now it can have harmful effects.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, having considered the question of nicotinic acid, said in December last year:
… nicotinic acid is not necessarily bad, when used in small quantities." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1963; Vol. 686 c. 844.]
This is true. In fact, it is the substance which enables us to live; although on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman missed the point. In that case nicotinic acid was used to disguise meat, and that is a different matter. It was not necessarly that the acid made the meat harmful, but that it could disguise stale meat from the purchaser's eye.
For this reason it appears to my hon. Friends that there should be an extension of these Regulations. I am told, for example—and I will no doubt, be corrected if I am wrong—that an injection of hormones into cattle is a means of making them more tender, although it renders the kidneys of the bull inedible in the sense that they are harmful to human digestion. But what are the means of seeing that these kidneys will be destroyed? The butcher should see that they are, but I gather that there are no regulations to prevent them being sold in the butcher's shop. This matter should be looked into.
I agree that this so-called tenderising of beef may be harmful. The Government are endeavouring to recognise this, because they are talking about the labelling of meat. This will be difficult. I am not altogether sure how one could label a single chop, loin or joint and this may create difficulties for the butcher. We are all concerned with health and healthy eating habits and, for these reasons, I hope that the Government will consider extending these Regulations.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross) for his fascinating and learned discourse on the dangers of innocence. People have unsuspectingly been eating meat that they thought was of the best, only to find that it was titivated to be the more readily sold. Since there is danger attaching to this matter, I want to know what the Secretary of State for Scotland was doing between 10th and 15th January.
The Regulations for England and Wales were laid on 10th January. Whether or not the Secretary of State was touring abroad, chasing the deer, shooting the grouse—although I have my doubts about that at that time of year—I do not know, but it was only 15th January that found him signing the Regulations for Scotland. Where was he during those five vital days? Could he not be found? If it was sufficiently important to protect the people of Scotland from the possible ill-effects of this practice, the right hon. Gentleman should have been as speedily on the job as were the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health in England and Wales. Or could he not make up his mind about the need to take action? The chances are that he could not be found.
The result is that the Regulations came into force in England and Wales on 23rd January, but did not come into force in Scotland until 30th January. Those are very important dates, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) appreciates how important they are—

Mr. Archie Manuel: Yes—Burns's birthday.

Mr. Ross: Exactly. I want to know whether the haggis is processed or unprocessed—and I can assure my hon. Friends that the "Rustic, haggis-fed", is someone to make any country proud. I do not want to recite the ode to the haggis tonight, but the fact is that Burns celebrations in Scotland do not all take place in one day—they are spread over about 10 days. During those 10 vital days this year probably more food was eaten than at any other time, apart from the beginning of January—Hogmanay. It was vital that we should have had fairly speedy action by the Secretary of

State, and I cannot understand why we should have been a week later than England and Wales. Incidentally, it is no good Welsh hon. Members who sit for Scottish divisions praising Scotland, when the Secretary of State has fallen down on his job.
I already have enough reading to do, what with Bills about agriculture, the police, housing, and all the stuff that is going through the sausage-machine of Parliament, without having to perplex myself about exactly how various things are defined in the Regulations. First, we are told that
…'animal' does not include bird or fish …
But when we read the Regulations we do not find any mention of "animal" at all. It is only mentioned in terms of another interpretation. In order to find the relevance of "animal" we have to read the interpretation of "meat which, we are told
… means the flesh or other part of any animal which is intended for sale for human consumption…
It would have satisfied even my simple mind as being adequately defined as the meat of the animal we are talking about, rather than having to be told that
…'animal' does not include bird or fish …
After the definition of "meat", we have the definition of the word "processed." "Processed", I gather, is reasonably important, because it takes four lines to define it, but when it comes to enforcement and the Regulations dealing with the sale of raw meat, the word "processed" is not used at all. It is, therefore, defined only to provide an easy and unspecific way of defining "unprocessed". The definition reads:
 'Processed', in relation to meat, includes curing by smoking"—
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), who spoke on the Adjournment last night, is not present.
The definition goes on:
and any treatment or process resulting in a substantial change in the natural state of the meat but does not include boning, paring, grinding, cutting, cleaning or trimming; and 'unprocessed shall be construed accordingly".
Therefore, one starts to work out what "unprocessed" means—what it includes and does not include. This is far too


comprehensive a definition of "processed". Therefore, in the unprocessed state, certain things which we might construe as processed are considered unprocessed and vice versa.
Next, there is the question of penalties. There is a difference between Scotland and England not only in the penalties but also in the matter of actual contravention. I notice that in Scotland
if any person contravenes or fails to comply with any of the foregoing provisions of these regulations he shall be guilty of an offence under these regulations.
I presume that this would mean contravention of an instruction to destroy or an instruction to hand over, but in England and Wales the words are:
if any person contravenes the provisions of regulation 3 …
which simply states that
No raw and unprocessed meat shall contain any added specified substance.
and
No person shall sell, consign or deliver any raw and unprocessed meat which contains any added specified substance.
Is there any subtle difference to account for the fact that certain words are necessary in Scotland and unnecessary in England? Does it mean that the Scots are more careful and are leaving no loophole?
We in Scotland have more experience of this matter. The last Regulations concerned with meat related to slaughterhouses and inspection and destruction of meat. We then discovered that the position in England and Wales is chaotic and will remain so for quite a time. We found that the qualifications of the people who are doing the job in Scotland are and always have been much higher and that our Regulations have been in existence for a great many years.
It might, therefore, be wise to find out what the Scottish Office was doing during the period to which I referred earlier. It may be that having had more experience and attaching more importance to these matters, people at the Scottish Office may have been doing a better job. This may be the reason for the five-day delay. I give them the benefit of the doubt.
There are three matters connected with the penalties. First, there is a

Scottish Standing Committee and as a result we have far better legislation and a concentration on the things that matter. What matters here is not penalties on the butcher but the safeguarding of the public. When a butcher knows that he is adding something which adds nothing whatever to the nutriment of meat and he knows that all he is doing is disguising its age or its quality, seeking, in fact, to pass something off on the public, the penalty ought to be pretty severe, bearing in mind the kind of effect we now know these things have. It took us a long time from the discovery of what happened in America, about a year until the Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), till action was taken by the Government.
In Scotland, the offence can be dealt with not only under summary jurisdiction but on indictment, with the result that we get not just a penalty of £100 or six months—incidentally, the change here stems from the work of the Scottish Grand Committee last year in dealing with criminal justice and the revision of penalties—but a possible penalty of £500 or one year's imprisonment on indictment. Undoubtedly, if matters are dealt with in this way, we shall have no repetition of trouble in Scotland. We value the quality of our food, we value the protection of the public and, indeed, we value the good name of Scotch beef. One of the things I am sorry about is that this has been applied to beef in England and everything has been passed off as prime Scotch beef merely on the basis of colour, with a disadvantage to Scotland, and, from that point of view, the penalties might have been higher, although they will probably be tied by the legislation under which we are moving.
Are the Government looking at this matter seriously from the point of view of the protection of the public? Here is a powder which in itself is harmless and, more than that, is essential to life but which, in the hands of people who do not know its qualities, can become a danger. Butchers and grocers should not think that they are also chemists, and the same applies to manufacturers. As has been said, the modern trend


is that of the super-store, with everything packaged, glossy and lovely-looking. In fact, despite all the superficial covering, our food is probably more dangerous than it was when the grocer had his open sacks and mixed teas, coffees and the rest, blending things to suit himself and the customer's particular needs. This being so, a far greater responsibility is thrown on the people who can control the purity of our food—that is, the Minister of Health and the. Secretary of State for Scotland, or the Minister of Agriculture so far as he is here involved. In Scotland, of course, everything devolves upon one person. The Secretary of State is everything. We hope that, one 'day, we shall even have him here with us.
The responsibility is very great indeed and I hope that an answer will be given to the succinct question put by my hon. Friend. Only about a week ago, we had another incident, and action was taken by the Government, after a sudden appreciation of the dangers, to ban certain uses of a particular substance. The difficulty is that we do not always know what will happen until trouble occurs. I hope that the Government will tell us that they are looking into the matter much more carefully and that they will ensure that, quite apart from the use of substances which we do know cause harm, the use of something as an additive, even though it does no harm, will not be allowed so long as it has no active good purpose.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. William Small: This problem has been with us for many years. When I was a schoolboy and I ran errands for my mother she used to tell me, "Tell the butcher not to sell me meat containing Madame Rachel".
"Meat" is defined in these Regulations as meaning
the flesh or other part of any animal which is intended for sale for human consumption.
I can understand how the public health inspector deals with meat which is killed in a slaughterhouse, but how does he deal with venison? Is the deer killed in a slaughterhouse? One type of meat which lays itself open to dressing up if it is stale is venison, because normally only a specialist can tell that it is venison. The sale of venison is not

big enough to justify it being called "meat". I am sure that the Minister recognises that it is hard to dispose of the whole animal because there is not a retail market for it.
I should like to know what the position of venison is under these Regulations.

8.52 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): Like, I am sure, the whole House, I have listened with great interest to the points which have been raised, and particularly to the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross), which was extremely detailed and knowledgeable. I am grateful to him for the way that he put his points forward and for bringing this matter before us, since it gives me the opportunity to explain the position and to answer some of the questions which he and other hon. Members have put.
As hon. Members will know, my right hon. Friend, acting jointly with the Minister of Health, has powers under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, to make regulations to control, among other things, the addition of substances to food to protect the interest of the consumer. It is obvious from the speeches that protection of the consumer is paramount in hon. Members' thoughts. These are the powers under which the Regulations which we are discussing were made.
It may be necessary either to protect the consumer against the addition of substances of such a kind or in such quantity as would be physically harmful to him; or to prevent him from being misled about what he is buying. There are, therefore, the two considerations—whether something is harmful, and whether something will mislead him. Ministers have made rather more regulations in the first category—for example, the Lead in Food Regulations and the Preservatives Regulations—but the Regulations we are discussing deal principally with things which deceive the public. They aim at preventing the customer from being misled as to the quality of the food that he or she is buying. We already have the Colouring


Matter in Food Regulations, 1957, which prohibit the use of dyes and other colouring matters on any meat, game, poultry, fish, fruit or vegetable which is sold raw and unprocessed, and the Colouring Matter in Food Regulations are at present being reviewed by the Food Standards Committee. This, in fact, answers one of the hon. Member's specific questions; under the Regulations one cannot use any of the coal tar derivatives on raw meat.

Sir B. Stross: I appreciate this and we are all grateful that it is so. It makes us wonder why it is allowed for meat which has been processed in such a way that there is a substantial change, namely, sausage meat or mincemeat.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I intended to come to that later in my remarks when dealing with the question of processing, to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) also referred.
The substances against which the Meat (Treatment) Regulations are directed are not colouring matters within the terms of the Colouring Regulations. The practice which is the subject of these Regulations is, strictly speaking, not the colouring of meat, but the use of certain proprietary preparations to preserve or to restore the fresh, red appearance of meat.
The active ingredients of these preparations are, as the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, Central pointed out with great detail and knowledge, nicotinic acid, nicotinamide and ascorbic acid. The effect of their use, principally on minced meat but also on joints of meat, is to prevent the normal colour change in meat after it loses its freshness. Thus, when meat is minced, the fresh red colour gradually degenerates under shop conditions, the reasons for which were also explained by the hon. Member, and it assumes a dull and, perhaps, less attractive appearance after a day or so.
Meat minced with a mixture of nicotinic acid and ascorbic acid assumes a bright pinkish colour, which is maintained without much change for a longer time. I understand, furthermore, that it is also claimed that further additions of these preparations will brighten up the colour again later.
The House will, therefore, readily appreciate the undesirability of this practice. I entirely agree with what hon. Members have said about it. Not only does it deceive the purchaser as to the true condition of the meat which he or she buys, but it can also, by maintaining a fresh appearance to the meat, mask any deterioration of it which may have occurred. That is why the Government have introduced the Regulations.
I turn next to the point about a warning to the trade, which hon. Members opposite have raised. There have always been the general provisions of the Food and Drugs Act against misleading consumers as to the nature, substance or quality of food and against the addition of anything which might be harmful. Therefore, although the Regulations have not been brought forward earlier, the general provisions have covered the position to date.
There is, moreover, the possibility that if any of these preparations which contain nicotinic acid are used in excess to give the maximum effect, as seems to have happened, or if they are not mixed evenly with the meat, nicotinic acid poisoning can result. The word "poisoning" is, perhaps, a rather strong term to use in the context of the product of which we are speaking, but I cannot think of any other word to use instead.
Nicotinic acid poisoning could also be caused by the normal and correct use of the substance if the treated matter is eaten by certain people who are particularly susceptible or allergic to nicotinic acid. This could well happen. Although it is not a dangerous form of poisoning, it is not a risk which anybody should undergo if it can be avoided. Although the prevention of health risk is not the prime purpose of the Regulations, it was the occurrence of one or two cases of illness which first drew my right hon. Friend's attention to the practice.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock criticised the Government for not acting sooner in this matter. In August, November and December last year, the Ministry of Health and my Department received reports from medical officers of health of some isolated cases of mild food poisoning


attributable to the addition of nicotinic acid to minced meat. These symptoms were as the hon. Member described—a warmth, itching, redness and flushing of the face, neck and extremities. I understand that no diarrhoea or vomiting incurred in any of the cases. The poisoning was short-lived and there were no permanent after-effects. Indeed, I am advised that no lasting damage occurs from this kind of overdose, although it is unpleasant for its recipient. The Ministry discussed the use of the preparations in question with the National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations and, as a result, the Federation recommended its members not to use them.
The reports which had been received were put, at the first opportunity, to the Food Additives Sub-Committee and the Food Standards Committee, which met in November and December respectively. That, happily, coincided with the Question put by the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin).
The Food Standards Committee recommended that, as the use of these substances on raw and unprocessed meat could deceive the customer and mask deterioration of the meat, it should be stopped. My right hon. Friends accepted this advice and made these Regulations accordingly on 10th January. This was less than one month after it had been referred to the Committee. I do not think that the Government can be accused of acting slowly or laggardly in this matter once their attention was drawn to it.
Meanwhile, the Food Additives Sub-Committee is currently considering these substances in more detail, including their use in processed meat products, and will be advising my right hon. Friends as soon as it can whether there is any need to extend the scope of the Regulations. I can assure the House that everything that has been said in this debate will be noted and I am sure that the Sub-Committee will pay great attention to it.
The point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central about sausages will also be considered by the Sub-Committee. It has always been understood, however, that the sausage was properly regarded as a processed product, because the form of the meat is substantially changed. It has been so

regarded for the purpose of other regulations, such as those on colouring, which I referred to earlier. These considerations are entirely different from the addition of nicotinic acid to flour, which is done—and is required by law to be done—to replace vitamins lost in milling. The Sub-Committee will, naturally, take full account of what has been said in the debate about the substance.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central referred to the article published in the United States in 1962, in which cases of anaphylaxis were mentioned. But the people so affected were under treatment with nicotinic acid administered by injection, not taken orally. No cases of anaphylaxis have occurred as a result of nicotinic acid being taken orally. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue in this instance.
The article was noticed by the Ministry of Health. At the time the information it gave did not suggest that the use of the substances in question called for any action here. No case had been reported and there was no cause for disquiet. The particular point raised by the hon. Gentleman was a different issue altogether. The article was concerned with the medical aspects. I can assure the House that we have moved as fast as we could in this matter and have taken proper and adequate safeguards.
The last suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman was for a general review of additives used in food and he urged us to compile a pharmacopoeia of permitted substances. As he appreciates, that is a formidable task, but it is exactly what we are trying to do, and I hope that he will give us credit for it. The Food Additives Sub-Committee is working through the whole range of food additives and will carry on until it has finished. It would be impossible for this or any other body to do the whole job at once. Nor is it only a matter of compiling a set of lists. The lists must be kept up to date and on top of its other labours the sub-committee is endeavouring to review the Regulations every five years as a matter of routine.
This re-emphasises my point that we are very alive to this situation and to the dangers inherent in it. With all additives to food, whether colourants or others,


the maximum safeguards are used, but if something of urgent importance comes up, the Sub-Commitee meets ad hoc to decide what may be necessary. A great deal of work is involved and I do not think that the work done by the Sub-Committee, which is quite considerable, is always sufficiently appreciated by the House or by the public generally.
I was asked about the difference between the Regulations concerning Scotland and those concerning England and Wales. The difference in the penalties arises because the penalties are governed by enabling legislation. For England and Wales this is the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, while for Scotland it is the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1956. These Acts prescribe different penalties. The maximum penalties in the Scottish Act are higher than those in the English because in Scotland it is the practice to treat several related contraventions as part of a single complaint or charge which attracts a single penalty, Under Scottish law, several contraventions can be taken together and one penalty imposed if that is so decided by the court. In England and Wales, such contraventions are treated as separate charges, each attracting a separate but smaller penalty. The net result is that the different maximum statutory penalties simply even out to produce the same net result in the two countries.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock referred to the gap between laying the Regulations and bringing them into operation. This is to enable full notice to be given to the interested parties and I am sure that that was the reason for the delay between bringing the English Regulations and the Scottish Regulations into operation.
These Regulations are not a substantial item in our programme of food additives legislation, but the need for them has arisen and I am sure that the House will agree that they are useful. I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central will not press his Prayer, because it is plain that he and his hon. Friends are as much in favour of these Regulations and of stopping the practice which has come to light from the unfortunate incidents last year as are the Government.

Dr. Stross: In view of the full answer which we have received, which has certainly satisfied me in the main, although it has not given me sufficient satisfaction about the possibility of coal tar dyes, which are not covered by the Regulations, and as it is recognised that the House is insistent that this sort of thing should be watched, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT, BARTON-ON- HUMBER AND SCUNTHORPE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

9.10 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I wish to draw attention this evening to a certain part of North Lincolnshire, and to draw attention in particular to two problems which are somewhat correlated, but which have regard to, and arise from, two parts of North Lincolnshire, namely Bartonon-Humber and Scunthorpe.
This is a time—and we had some reference to this in the last debate—broadly speaking, of mass production, diminution in taste—and I would add in individuality—and of over-concentration in urban conglomerations at the expense of individually developing and self-expressing smaller communities. Barton-on-Humber is one of these smaller communities one in which there is a very distinct consciousness not only of the rights of the sturdy people who live there, but also a distinct consciousness by those people of their duties to the community in which they live, and this is no bad thing to find in these days.
Barton has a working population of about 2,350 men and about 650 women. They are a self-helping community, which goes very well with the description that I have given of them, and as one example may I cite that over a period of 12 years there were constant efforts by this small community to raise money to build themselves what is now, I am glad to say, perhaps the finest warmed open-air swimming bath in the United Kingdom. It was opened last year. That is one example of the regard for self-help, self-respect, and


pride which these people in North Lincolnshire have in their community.
They are a go-ahead lot, but unfortunately since the war there has been a very serious contraction in two of their main activities, namely, in the brick and tile industry, and in the cycle industry, with the result that there has been a marked falling off in the number of jobs available to people in Bartonon-Humber itself.
That has meant a marked increase in the dependence for employment on the steelworks in Scunthorpe, which is about 14 miles away. Nearly 30 per cent. of the men, and 15 per cent. of the women, are driven out of the Barton to which they belong and which they love to find jobs. This is bad. It is bad from the point of view of the individual worker, because people who work at a distance from where they live are very often the first to be dispensed with when a depression sets in. And even if that does not befall them, they have the considerably increased expense of working that distance away from home, and the physical racket of having to go to and from work every day, with the increase in time that that means in their working day.
It must not be forgotten that the steel works in Scunthorpe operate on a shift system, which means that these wretched people from Barton sometimes have to travel those 14 miles to work and back at night. It is bad also from the point of view of the community, because however much these people may prefer to live in Barton, in a smaller and more individualistic community, since they have to bear the physical burden of going that long distance every day to and from their work they naturally take the first chance that comes their way to live in Scunthorpe. That is bad for Barton. It means that this real, live, self-expressing community is gradually running down.
More industry must be brought to Barton. None has been brought there. One of the main reasons for this is that the Government do nothing for Barton. Instead, they rely on certain figures, which happen to be correct but which, in my submission, give a totally false impression. Nearly one-third of the workers of Barton are virtually "unemployed", although they go

to Scunthorpe to work. They are not registered as unemployed because they have the spirit and perseverance to find work as far away as 14 miles, with all that that means in discomfort, especially in the winter. So they are not regarded as unemployed, and the Government can sit back very conveniently and forget all about them.
I use those words, which are a little harsh, because this is not the first time that I have mentioned the question of Barton-on-Humber in the House, and drawn attention to the state of affairs that exists there. Nothing of a positive nature has been done. I shall refer shortly to something of a negative character which had its inspiration in the Government, if it was not the first-hand work of the Government. First, I want to mention another point about Barton. It used to be a good little port. Ships up to 500 tons used to go into Barton Haven right up until 1954. There was also a considerable lighterage trade across to Hull, as well as the trade from ships coming direct to Barton. But because—doubtless for very good reasons from its own point of view, and having regard to its responsibilities—the local drainage board decided to divert some water which used to come out through Barton Haven, the harbour has been silting up almost visibly ever since 1954. Now, even barges have difficulty in going there except at springs, let alone ships up to 500 tons.
I wonder whether the Government know that no authority is responsible for this port. I submit that an authority should be responsible for looking after small ports and for seeing that they remain viable, instead of being allowed to decay. The Government have not helped. They have done nothing.
Now I come to the point in respect of which the Government may be held responsible, indirectly, at any rate, for doing something. Barton is one of the many towns which will be slapped down if Dr. Beeching has his way. Here was a little port, with admirable road and rail communications. I am convinced that over the last 10 years saboteurs have been a: work, trying to make that excellent railway connection as inconvenient as possible and to prevent it from paying.
Let me give one example. The enterprising people of Barton used to arrange school parties to go to Hull by ferry—the ferry with which Barton was connected by a small branch line, shuttling to and fro. When it was known that there were concerts on a certain night of the week in Hull to which the school children went, this malign influence—I can call it nothing else—especially came along and arranged that the connection with the ferry to Hull should no longer operate. Now, these children have to remain in Barton. The railway is used to a less extent and culture is not served either.
I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary for this, but he must realise that it is a serious situation. He may have a more charitable explanation than I about what has been going on in British Railways which allowed timetables to be arranged completely regardless of the cultural life of this small but valuable community. I wish to hear from the hon. Gentleman about what he and the Government intend to do for Barton, this small port, which could be of such value to this hitherto vital community and which is not without national significance. Since the war the malting business in Barton has built up an export trade to the Continent which should interest the hon. Gentleman. It amounts to between 45,000 and 50,000 tons a year, which was dependent on the barges going to and fro between the maltings and Hull.
The second problem with which I wish to deal is related, because the steel industry comes into it. It refers to Scunthorpe. The Scunthorpe region is the largest steel-producing region in this country. I know that most people think of Sheffield when steel is mentioned. Although a bit of steel is produced there, Sheffield only polishes up the stuff which we make in Scunthorpe. The town has a fine record and a forward-looking council. Great efforts were made with wonderful success to house the increased number of steelworkers and their families as the industry developed. Scunthorpe is a town of 70,000 inhabitants and has grown at a phenomenal speed. But it is a one-industry town and the women fare badly.
There is a hidden pool of unemployed women, probably numbering 2,500. The national average of employed women is about 35 per cent. In Scunthorpe the figure is 23 per cent. If, to the number of unemployed which are shown on the books, there were added this 2,500, who would have jobs in light industry, were such jobs available, Scunthorpe would be—dare I say it about this Eldorado?—a depressed area, a development district, and I wish to know what the Government propose to do about it.
I have a suspicion that the Government dissuade industry from coming to Scunthorpe, and on paper they have a good reason for doing so. It is that other areas may appear more necessitous. Last year there was a slight depression and we felt it in Scunthorpe. That is the danger of having to rely exclusively on one industry. Most of the families depend on the steel industry for employment and if there is a sudden depression the result is a drastic diminution in their income. Except for 500 workers who are employed in light industry, the people in this borough of 70,000 inhabitants have nothing on which to depend when times are hard in the steel industry. That sort of depression could happen again.
The regular unemployment figures, are, thank Heaven, very small. Do the Government propose to continue to stand pat on those figures, or will they look at the reality underlying the figures? I hope it will not be considered frivolous when I remind the House that we are approaching a General Election, and I hope it will not be considered an offensive description if I say that aid is being handed out at a most significant speed. But nothing has come to this north-east corner of Lincolnshire except the Beeching slap in the face. I am not sure that this place should not be a development district. I hand to the Government, on a plate and just before the General Election, the opportunity to do something for Scunthorpe.
Why not transfer a Government Department there and provide employment for the women? Have they considered that, or have they always at the back of their minds something which has not been openly expressed—the idea that they cannot send anything to Scun


thorpe, because there is so little registered unemployment there? There are other things besides numbers of registered unemployed which should be considered.
If the Government did something to Scunthorpe and by their action won away the voters of Scunthorpe from me, I would willingly lose my seat. If, on the other hand, they prefer my presence because they are not prepared to do anything for Scunthorpe, it is up to them.

9.23 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price) rose—

Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will there be an opportunity for some of my hon. Friends who have been here for some time to continue this discussion? You may recall that I advised you that some of my hon. Friends would wish to continue it. I also advised the Government Whip, whose duty it is to inform the Minister, that we should not be changing but extending the scope of this debate to other parts of the country. Is it in order to continue the discussion when there is a Minister from the Board of Trade here to hear it?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot go further than thee. What the hon. Member said is absolutely accurate to this extent. He gave me, personally and informally, notice that other hon. Members would wish to take part in the debate. I said, I think rightly, that that was perfectly all right with the Chair if they gave warning to the Minister responsible. All that has happened at the moment is that the Minister has risen and, in accordance with the Ruling I gave, I think last month, I am required by precedent to call him if he rises in those circumstances.

Mr. Lawson: May my hon. Friends put their points before the Minister replies?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot ask me that, because the Minister is not under my control. I am obedient to the circumstances, which are that he has risen and I am, in those circumstances, obliged to call him when he does so.

Mr. Price: Perhaps I may assist the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). I an endeavouring to reply to the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) and I understand that a number of other hon. Members wish to take advantage of the fact that we have got on to the Adjournment a little earlier than usual to raise a number of general points. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will be here although, of course, in the shore time available no Minister can answer in detail all the points made.
It is the normal custom that proper notice is given on the particular subject which hon. Members wish to raise. No notice has been given to me or, as far as I know, to any other Minister. I shall, therefore, reply to the hon. and learned Member for Brigg, whose Adjournment debate this is, and whose subject has been put on the Order Paper.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) knew of this proposal and was quite happy that we should have a few worth on the same lines as those on which he has spoken. He is quite happy to wait while one or two of my hon. Friends speak and, on that basis, for the Minister to reply.
The procedure adopted tonight is exactly the procedure described to us as agreed procedure to be carried out if it appeared that a debate was coming to an early termination. Under those circumstances, if hon. Members have points to put in a debate the opportunity should be used. Is the Parliamentary Secretary not prepared, in these circumstances, for the debate to continue a little further before he replies to it?

Mr. Price: I understand that the points which were to be raised were not to be about Barton-on-Humber or Scunthorpe. That was the subject put down for the Adjournment debate. Although hon. Members are perfectly free, according to the rules of the House, to raise other points after I have replied to the hon. and learned Member, I think it only courteous that I should reply at once to him on the subject of Barton-on-Humber and Scunthorpe. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable arrange


ment. I understand that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies wish to raise no doubt similar, but wider points about places in Scotland—

Mr. F. H. Hayman: And Cornwall.

Mr. Price: Or Cornwall, or anywhere else.
The hon. and learned Member for Brigg, has drawn our attention this evening to the current situation and prospects in two, apparently very diverse, towns in his constituency—Barton-on-Humber and Scunthorpe. As he reminded us, Barton is a small urban district with a population of less than 7,000. It grew modestly during the 1950s, but more recently the pace of development appears somewhat to have slowed down.
Scunthorpe, on the other hand, is a town of substantial size. Its population is not far short of 70,000, more than ten times that of Barton. What is more, Scunthorpe has been in recent years one of the most rapidly growing towns in Britain. In 1931, its population was less than 35,000, so that it has more than doubled in size during the last 30 years. There can be very few towns, even in the so-called "booming South-East", of which we have heard so much in recent months, which can match Scunthorpe's record of dynamic growth.
But, although these two towns have, superficially at least, got little in common, there is one problem which they share, and it is for that reason that the hon. and learned Gentleman has, very properly, linked them in this debate. The link is this: both Barton and Scunthorpe feel that they need further industrial development. I should like, in a moment, to comment in detail on the case which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward for each of these two towns.
First, there is one general point which I must make. The desire for further industrial development is something which Barton and Scunthorpe have in common, not only with one another but also with the vast majority of towns, large and small, in the country as a whole. This is quite understandable. There can be very few of us who do

not want to feel that our own particular town is developing, growing and becoming more prosperous. There are many places which can produce good social arguments—like those which the hon. and learned Member has put forward tonight—why further development is particularly desirable for them.
The demand for new industry is, therefore, virtually unlimited. But, on the other hand, the supply of new industry at any one time is, of course, by no means unlimited. Indeed, the amount of "steerable" industry available—that is new industrial development which is not tied to a specific location—is very strictly limited. The Board of Trade cannot, therefore, expect to be able to satisfy all the requests for new industrial development which are made to it. There must be some order of priorities. The overriding priority must, of course, be that which the Board under a statutory obligation to give to the needs of the development districts. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to quarrel with that priority.
I should like to turn now to the particular case of Barton-on-Humber. As I have said, the urban district of Barton has a population of about 6,600. The Barton Employment Exchange area, which covers a rather wider area than the urban district, had 2,848 insured employees in mid-1962, the latest date for which figures are available. Nearly 500 of these workers were employed in agriculture and quarrying, just over 1,000 in manufacturing, and the remainder in the service industries. In addition, a substantial number of workers travel to work in Scunthorpe each day and for employment purposes are registered there.
The House will recall that people tend to register as employed persons in the place where they work, but, if they become unemployed, register where they live, which is not necessarily in the same employment exchange area. The manufacturing firms in Barton are all relatively small, but they provide a sound basis for the town's prosperity and should continue to do so.
Unemployment in Barton has not, I am glad to say, been a serious problem in recent years. The average number of workers wholly unemployed in the Barton Employment Exchange area during the 12 months of 1963 was 90, which


amounted to 3·1 per cent. of the working population. The comparable figure for Great Britain as a whole was 2·3 per cent. In January of this year, there were 50 men and 15 women registered as wholly unemployed—2·3 per cent., compared with a national figure of 2·1 per cent. If it is recalled that the Barton people working in Scunthorpe appear as Scunthorpe employed and not Barton employed, the percentage of true Barton people would be lower.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: What is this question of true Barton people?

Mr. Price: I mean people living in Barton. I thought that that was part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the unemployment figures do not in themselves form a strong case for permitting further industrial development. Indeed, he did not base his case on them but rather on the need to provide jobs in Barton for the several hundred workers who travel to work each day in Scunthorpe.
If this were an ideal world, I might agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that everyone should be able to find the job of his choice in his own home town. But we are not living in an ideal world, and in the real world the increasing scale and specialisation of modern industry means that a town of Barton's size cannot possibly have a a sufficient range of industry to provide more than a relatively narrow range of jobs.
An increasing degree of travel-to-work is in inescapable feature of the modem industrial society in which we live. I cannot regard 14 miles as being an utterly intolerable distance to have to travel to work each day. I can appreciate that for some people a journey of 14 miles daily to and from their work involves a certain amount of inconvenience. But I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman painted rather too black a picture. I am by no means convinced that all the workers who now travel to Scunthorpe would necessarily prefer to work in Barton. In any case, I am sure that he would agree that any hardship which may be involved in travelling some distance to one's work is not at all comparable with the hard

ship one faces if one has no job at all to which to travel.
In other words, the development districts' need for new industry must come before the needs of places like Barton-on-Humber. But that does not mean that Barton will be totally neglected by the Board of Trade. The Barton Urban District Council has been in touch with our regional office in Leeds and I hope that it has felt that it has been listened to sympathetically. The council has been told that we should be prepared to grant an industrial development certificate for Barton for any suitable project which could not be expected to go to a development district.
I can repeat that undertaking tonight. Our regional office has, in fact, drawn the attention of two or three firms, which were known to have suitable projects in mind, to Barton as a possible location. So far, the firms concerned have preferred to go elsewhere. However, we sharll continue to bear the general situation in Barton in mind and to bring the town to the notice of firms on appropriate occasions.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned the need to develop the harbour facilities of Barton-on-Humber. This, as he knows, is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, since any Government assistance would have to be given under the Harbours Bill, which is at present before the House. I will, therefore, limit myself tonight to commenting on the factual position regarding Barton Haven, as I understand it. The harbour at Barton-on-Humber is a tidal creek on the south side of the Humber used for barging goods over to Hull docks on the opposite bank. The harbour has been silting up, apparently because improved land drainage has reduced the fresh water flow. I understand that the minimum cost of the dredging required would be about £6,000.
Under the Harbours Bill the Minister of Transport would be empowered to give financial assistance to statutory harbour authorities by way of loan and, in exceptional circumstances, grant. There is, however, no statutory harbour authority for Barton Haven. It is within the limits of the Humber Conservancy Board, but its responsibility is the general conservancy of the estuary. It is


the responsibility of the individual harbour authorities, for instance the British Transport Docks Board at Hull, to dredge and maintain the immediate approaches to the harbours on the estuary.
In relation to Barton Haven it is the responsibility of the individual wharf owners who, from the Government's point of view, are individually non-statutory harbour authorities, to finance and carry out any dredging or other operations necessary to maintain the use of their wharves at the level they desire. Barton-upon-Humber is not a development district, so no question of assistance under the Local Employment Acts arises.
The underlying principle which applies to both statutory and non-statutory harbours is that harbours are a commercial activity and must be self-supporting. The cost of maintaining them must be financed out of the trade passing through them. It is, therefore, up to the wharf owners in Barton Haven to consider whether they can themselves, in conjunction, carry out such dredging and other works as they think necessary; or whether there would be any advantage in their discussing with the urban district council and any other bodies in the area whom they think appropriate the possibility of setting up a statutory harbour authority for the Haven, to obtain the benefits of the Harbours Bill. Under the same Bill this could be done by means of an application to the Minister for a harbour empowerment order.
As to Scunthorpe, much of that I have already said about Barton applies equally to the larger town. Scunthorpe's rapid growth and current prosperity have been based on the development of the steel industry. The insured population of the Scunthorpe Employment Exchange area, which also includes Brigg, was nearly 50,000 in mid-1962. Nearly half of these workers were employed in the steel industry or its ancillaries. Scunthorpe is at present producing 11 per cent. of our crude steel output.
I appreciate that the dominant part which the steel industry has played in Scunthorpe's development has caused some problems and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman reminded us, the

most immediate of these is the shortage of jobs for women in the town. For every 100 men at work in Scunthorpe there are only 30 women in employment, whereas in the country as a whole the ratio is 100 to 55. I fully accept that Scunthorpe needs new industry which will employ women and girls, and within the limits set by our obligation to the development districts we are prepared to see industrial development of this kind in the town. But I must add, because I do not wish to encourage false hopes, that past experience suggests that the number of suitable projects coming forward in the foreseeable future is likely to be quite small.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also suggested that diversification of industry in Scunthorpe is desirable to reduce the extent to which the town is dependent on steel. I have some sympathy with his argument, but I can see no reason why the development of the steel industry should not continue to be the basis of Scunthorpe's prosperity in future, just as it has been the reason for its rapid growth in the past.
I developed the point when talking about Barton, but it applies even to a place the size of Scunthorpe. I think that we cannot expect a community of 70,000 people to have that full diversification of opportunity, particularly when one recognises that in industries like steel the minimum basic size of unit of production is so much larger than it was before the war. I think that one has to look to communities getting on to nearer half a million people before one can expect to find a complete balance in one's industry so that there is not complete dependence, or excessive dependence on one industry. That community will probably be getting on for that size—though not of people employed—for us to get a really full balance, but I think that the House will agree that that is something very much larger than a community of 70,000 people.
In considering applications for industrial development certificates for Scunthorpe, the Board of Trade will beat in mind the employment situation in the town, including the probability that the working population will go on increasing. But we must continue to be guided principally by the current levels of unemployment. In Scunthorpe, I am glad


to say, unemployment has recently been below the national average. In January, it was 2·0 per cent. and the annual average for 1963 was 2·2 per cent., which was just below the national average.
Therefore, I must warn the hon. and learned Gentleman that the development districts and those places with a level of unemployment well above the national average must continue to have a higher claim than Scunthorpe upon the limited amount of genuinely steerable industry. This priority, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree, is socially and economically just.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Before the Parliamentary Secretary sits down, perhaps he can answer this question. When considering what unemployment there is in Scunthorpe, will he bear in mind those women who do not register there because they know that to do so is futile? If they were taken into consideration, too, I would be far more satisfied.

Mr. Price: I recognise that point but, when it conies to priorities, the place where the women are actually registered as unemployed must have the priority, because if they need the work sufficiently they are prepared to take it outside their own home town. The place where they are registered and known to be seeking work must have priority over the place where they are not openly seeking work, but would, no doubt, take work if it came along.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT, FALMOUTH

9.48 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you and the House will grant me indulgence and allow me to make a short speech on a very different type of constituency problem at Falmouth—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but my duty requires that I should ask him whether he has given notice to the Minister whom he believes to be responsible.

Mr. Hayman: Yes, Sir. I said that I would make a short point, but did not want a full reply. I said that it

was a very important point that I wanted to put to the hon. Gentleman in order that he might convey it to his Minister.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member mentioned to me a few minutes before I came into the Chamber that he intended to raise a matter. I said that he was perfectly free to raise it, but that I would not be able to reply.

Mr. Speaker: That is quite all right with me. My duty is out of it.

Mr. George Lawson: Am I to understand, Mr. Speaker, that you are asking that each hon. Member who takes part in an Adjournment debate in circumstances such as these individually will have been expected to have given notice to the Minister concerned?

Mr. Speaker: No, I am simply asking whether notice has been given, because the hon. Member knows what the consequences would be if it had not been given; but supposing that a reputable agent—it might be the hon. Member himself—had given notice on behalf of another hon Member, that would satisfy me.

Mr. Archie Manuel: Further to that point of order. I understand that because of some misgivings and doubts from the Chair on an occasion last week, or the week before, there was some discussion about this through the usual channels. I understand that what has been formally agreed now is that if the House is thought to be rising early, notice can be given through the usual channels, that is, the Whips' Office, which informs the Minister concerned. This has been agreed now and I hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. Speaker: That is quite all right, but the hon. Member is wrong in thinking that the Chair has any misgivings. The Chair has no misgivings. It has absolute confidence in every Member, but somebody else had misgivings and I am aware of the exchanges. As far as an hon. Member says that notice has been given, that is good enough for me. If a quarrel exists it relates between others.

Mr. Hayman: Falmouth and Cam-borne carry the name of my constituency but tonight I am concerned principally with Falmouth. I had an Adjournment debate last May to which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who is present, replied and therefore the hon. Gentleman is cognisant with the general position there.
In December last unemployment in the Falmouth employment district, which is much larger than the borough, was 12·9 per cent. In January it was 17·1 per cent. It is still running at about the same figure, but the main difficulty is that the Falmouth shipyard, which is one of the finest ship-repairing yards in Europe, though perhaps small in comparison with some others, employs just over 2,000 men now compared with about 3,000 a few years ago. Ten unions are involved and most of the skilled workmen are out of work. They have been out of work for so long, though perhaps at different periods, that most of them have run out of unemployment benefit.
The President of the Board of Trade was in Cornwall on 2nd January. He visited the shipyard and met the employers, and at my request he was good enough to meet representatives of the men who work in the yard. The whole of Falmouth is greatly concerned about the situation. Two unions have invoked the aid of their national executives, and tomorrow afternoon I am meeting the Mayor of Falmouth about a request which has been nut forward that the President of the Board of Trade should receive a deputation from the council.
The fate of the shipyard is the fate of Falmouth, and indeed of West Cornwall. We are cut off from the great industrial areas but my constituency, in particular, has centuries of history as an industrial unit in Britain. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to give serious attention to what I am saying now. I hope that he will convey to the Minister the arguments I am putting forward and the plea that the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to receive a deputation from Falmouth Borough Council.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT, SCOTLAND

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I am very pleased that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) had the opportunity to raise the subject of the location of industry in certain parts of the country at a sufficiently early time for some of us to join him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I must ask him whether he has given warning to the Minister responsible, or the Minister he believes to be responsible.

Mr. Manuel: May I reply in this way, Mr. Speaker? It is the same Minister who has been responsible for the location of industry throughout the United Kingdom, and I understand that my hon. and learned Friend, who was sponsored through the usual channels, has done what was necessary. He has assured me of that and, therefore, I think that the agreement which has been made is satisfied.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman's answer is the word "Yes". I am obliged to him.

Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot quite understand this. My understanding of the position is that it is sufficient that one hon. Member gives advice that several hon. Members may wish to intervene in a debate of this sort on a given subject and that such advice given by that one person is the advice which is accepted. I have not yet been informed that each is expected individually to give such advice.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know how often I shall need to say this. As far as I am concerned, I accept the assurance of the hon. Gentleman in question. If he thinks that he has done it through an agent or a series of agents, perhaps, that is good enough for me. I do not wish to inquire into what happens behind the scenes. I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance. That is all.

Mr. Manuel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was congratulating my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg on what he had done, but I do not think


that he received very much satisfaction from the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. We got the usual reply which is becoming commonplace now about the need for employment to be created in many areas of the country. I wish to deal with the plainly apparent need in many parts of Scotland. I should be quite willing to include England and Wales, too, and I am not, therefore, putting the Parliamentary Secretary in the position of needing data about any particular area.
It is well known that many areas, particularly in Scotland, are doing everything possible, through the local authorities and through combinations of associations which have formed development committees, to bring industry where it is needed. I disagree profoundly with the case put by the Parliamentary Secretary when he says that, in modern conditions, modern industry being what it is, we must accept the idea that a journey of 50 miles will be commonplace, or words to that effect.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): Fifteen miles.

Mr. Manuel: I have always believed in and propagated the idea that industry should serve the needs of the people and that people should not, willy-nilly, be driven by economic need into the congested areas and that, similarly, industry should not always be located there.
The need is becoming glaringly apparent in those parts of the country where the older industries, mainly coal mining and shipbuilding, are passing out and new industries are not coming in to replace them. In these parts, unemployment runs at twice the rate in the rest of the United Kingdom. Special attention to their needs is urgently required. Much is at stake, and what would happen has been clear for a number of years now.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

Mr. Manuel: In these areas there has been a cessation of the old employment agencies and inevitably depopula

tion has taken place. There has been a gradual lowering of conditions and there is left only a nucleus of labour because the best labour has inevitably moved out.
I am glad to see that the Leader of the House has arrived. I hope that he will reply at the end of the debate. I am sorry that he has missed part of my contribution. He is deputy Prime Minister, and that is a very onerous position these days. In these areas the older industries have died out, or are dying out, or are contracting to such an extent that they are not giving the employment which they formerly gave, and very serious problems are arising.
I am sure that the Leader of the House will appreciate my next point because he has always taken an interest in local government and local government finance. During his period at the Treasury and in his Budget speeches much thought had to be given to local authority areas. In local authority areas where old industries are dying out and modern ones are not taking their place, there is depopulation and inevitably local authorities are receiving a lower rate yield.
The local authorities have taken on their shoulders onerous burdens because they have invested in houses, hospitals, libraries and clinics and all those things which they have tried to bring into being to create a good life for the people. In some local authorities in Scotland—for instance, in the old mining areas which are dying out—repayment of loan capital, sometimes running into millions of pounds, is spread over 60 years. An onerous burden is placed on local authorities and they are getting no help from the Government in respect of it.
What is the answer to this problem? In spite of all the inducements given in the Local Employment Act and the assistance in setting up industries given in the last Budget, it is clear that private enterprise is still not going into these areas. The Government must do something more of the carrot to induce industries to go into these areas is not big enough. Perhaps the Leader of the House will agree that what is needed is for the Government to make certain that Government-sponsored industry goes to these areas, thus saving them


from the inevitable degradation and decay which will take place if Government action is not taken.

10.4 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Before I raise a number of points, I should like your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, about the fact that a Minister is not present from the Board of Trade to reply. I understand that in the usual courteous way, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) informed the responsible Minister that if there were time after my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) had made his case, hon. Members from Scotland would wish to raise various matters. What is the position of hon. Members if the Minister simply walks out?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): It is not a matter for the Chair whether the Minister is present. It is not possible for the Chair to enforce the presence of anybody.

Mr. William Ross: Further to that point of order. You will bear in mind, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that very formally—it is something that I have never known during the long time that I have been a Member of the House—I heard Mr. Speaker ask my hon. Friend who rose to speak whether he had informed the Minister, and Mr. Speaker accepted the explanation that he was given. I should have thought it incumbent upon the Minister to wait to hear the debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. It is true, I understand, that the hon. Member said that he had informed the Minister, and therefore the Chair does not deprecate the hon. Member raising the matter. The Chair cannot, however, go beyond that. It is no responsibility of the Chair whether or no a Minister is present.

Miss Herbison: I accept your Ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Fortunately, we have the Leader of the House with us. I should like to ask him what reply we on this side from Scottish constituencies will have at the end of the debate. Is it not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's responsi

bility to ensure that the work of the House is carried out in a reasonable way? It certainly is most unreasonable, apart from being discourteous, that a Minister should walk out at ten o'clock. Perhaps it is because there is not one Tory back bencher present in the House.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East) rose—

Miss Herbison: I was merely giving way so the Leader of the House may reply. I am willing to give way again to hear what his attitude is, since he is responsible not only to his own Front Bench and his own back benches, but is also responsible to every Member in the House. I ask him to give a reply about the treatment that Scottish Members are getting.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): This is a case in which one has to have regard to all the circumstances. If the hon. Lady were to know them, I do not think that she would be quite as critical as she is being. I have come here and, at least, will listen to what is said and will certainly report it.

Mr. Manuel: To whom?

Miss Herbison: Since there is to little time, I cannot carry the point further, but I hope that it will be taken up through other channels so that we can find out what protection back benchers have in the House. I am at least glad that one of the Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland is present. He might do a little more than his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did in trying to ensure that the mining industry continues to flourish in Scotland.
The Minister who replied to my hon. Friend who raised the matter today stressed strongly that the President of the Board of Trade and the Government must be guided principally by the level of unemployment. I want to talk for a few minutes on an area which has heavy unemployment. In Scotland, we have 101,000 men and women unemployed. The tragedy is that almost 70,000 of them are men. Seventy-thousand of the breadwinners in Scotland are without a job and have little hope of finding one in the near future.
The position is even worse than the figures lead one to believe, because many of the 70,000 have been unemployed for such a long time that they are getting no unemployment benefit. But besides the degradation of being thrown on the scrapheap of unemployment for a long time, they have the further degradation of having to apply to the National Assistance Board to have any means to live and to keep their families.
If any area that, according to the Government's own definition, should be having far more assistance than at present, it is Scotland. An even greater tragedy than that of the 70,000 men I have spoken about is that of the 8,000 boys and girls under 18 who are out of work at the very threshold of their working lives. The biggest indictment against the Government after 12 years in office lies in what they have done to thousands of young people in Scotland.
What are the Government's proposals? For almost eight years they steadily refused to build advance factories in Scotland. A previous President of the Board of Trade said that industrialists wanted tailor-made factories. He himself was always beautifully dressed in tailor-made clothes, but we have discovered that there was as little proof in that statement as in many others made by the Government.
Under great pressure the Government finally decided to build some advance factories and these have brought work which we would not otherwise have had. I have two in my constituency. One was let before it was finished and the other was scarcely finished when it was let. These advance factories, at least in my constituency, have "gone like hot cakes". If only that part of my constituency so badly hit by pit closures had been given advance factories years ago, we should now have had a thriving community with diversified industry.
We have been told by the Government that a 15-mile journey to work is no hardship. It is not—provided there are easy travelling facilities. But human beings are not birds. When one talks of 15 miles that may be true as the crow flies, but it is not always only 15 miles by road. That is certainly so in Lanarkshire. We need a new industrial estate in the Wishaw-New Mains area, which

has not had a single penny spent on it under the Local Employment Act.
Time and again hon. Members from this area have made the strongest representations to the Board of Trade. New Mains is in my constituency and Wishaw is in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). An industrial estate would help not only the immediate area, but the areas which have been hurt by the closing of the mines and of Cokeness Ironworks, places like Carluke and Ford. Ministerial answers about travelling to work from places as isolated as Ford have Peen farcical, and that is why I said that human beings were not birds.
An additional difficulty is that in the winter roach in this area are sometimes impassable. What employer with this pool of unemployed labour will take a man from 15 miles away when in the winter he may not be able to get to his job every day? At least the Under-Secretary listens to us and I think that he is concerned about Scotland. He and his right hon. Friend should show far more guts a bout this matter and should fight to give Scotland the industries it so desperately needs.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: The House will be grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) for raising the subject of bringing industry to small places like Barton-upon-Humber.
Scottish Members represent areas which contain small burghs. Small communities are very valuable and I was shocked when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade expressed the view, presumably the Government's, that a community of fewer than 500,000 people cannot expect the economic diversification which is necessary to provide full employment. Have we all to choke together in huge conurbations of 500,000 people before we can have a variety of occupations? If so, this is a sad day for civilisation.
I regard the small community, the small township, even the market town, as an invaluable part of a civilised community. It is often the centre of a recreation of energy, a flowing out from the city, almost a cyclical renewal of


life from the big conurbations, and an important factor in maintaining a stable society. I was amazed that the Parliamentary Secretary, with his industrial connections, should have made such a frightful statement. For his view that populations of less than 500,000 cannot expect the sort of diversification needed to maintain full employment is frightful. That might have been true 100 years ago, but modern industries do not employ vast numbers. The so-called new industries have extensive plant monitored by only a few hundred men and women, but with tremendous output. The oil and chemical industries are good examples. There is no need to have an oil plant in the centre of a population of 500,000.
Oil plants can be put down in areas of small communities, because only a few men are needed to work such plants. On the West Coast of Scotland there are many small towns with populations of between 5,000 and 7,000. The young people of those areas are having to move out into the huge conurbations to which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade referred. Instead of allowing those areas to become depopulated, we should establish light industries there to produce consumer durable goods. By using modern techniques, these small communities could produce a lot of goods.
The attitude adopted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is nineteenth century. It is completely out of date. The Government talk about modernising Britain, but they are not thinking of modernisation. They may be thinking of modern techniques, but they are still back in the nineteenth century, when one had to put down an industry in an area with a large population. That is not the position today. Anyone who visits an oil refinery can see that a small labour force is responsible for a tremendous output.
The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that we should create townships of half a million people. I do not agree. I think that we should create small communities, and get our people away from the huge conglomerations into which they have been concentrated. I am an engineer. I have spent most of my life trying to produce more and more goods

with a smaller and smaller labour force. I hope to see the day when many of our small burghs in Scotland are not merely dormitory towns with populations which are getting older all the time, but are small, thriving, dynamic, communities in which there are a number of industries producing small bits and pieces for the motor industry, or for the different branches of trade and commerce.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will invite his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to come back to the House and express his regret that in the second half of the twentieth century he is thinking in terms of the early part of the nineteenth century, when producers put down industries only in areas where the maximum amount of labour was available.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: It is an old and established tradition that if there is a premature conclusion of Government business the Adjournment debate is started right away, and it is very difficult to be out of order on that debate.
For a long time there has been a practice—and it is one that I shall do everything I can to safeguard—that Members who have problems—and we certainly have plenty in Scotland—can inform the Minister concerned, and the Chair, and we can then debate those problems if the debate on the subject that was originally selected for the Adjournment is concluded.
The original mistake tonight was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who spoke after my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), because one thing which an hon. Member is not allowed to do on an Adjournment debate, or any other debate, unless we are in Committee, is to speak twice. I understand that there may be good reasons why the Minister left, but in those circumstances his responsibility was to ensure, out of courtesy to the House and to preserve the rights of hon. Members, that someone from his Department was here to answer the debate.
When I saw the Leader of the House come in I hoped that he would make a speech attacking the Board of Trade.


I can remember one of the best speeches he ever made, on 26th June, 1963, at about midnight, on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. He was then speaking as a back bencher, and I supported him. That is more than he has ever done for me. He was pleading the case of Port Ellesmere—a district in his constituency which had been left out of an industrial development area. He referred to the effect that that, plus a change in the Finance Bill, would have on development in that area. I hope that something has stirred in his memory and that he recollects the occasion.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): It is Ellesmere Port.

Mr. Ross: Yes—Ellesmere Port. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has got it—and they have got him.
The point that he was raising was a serious one. Because of the definition of a certain area, here was a small borough which had undertaken to take overspill from Liverpool, but in respect of which, by virtue of the fact that industrialists could not possibly be attracted there, there would be a frustration of development and a frustration of the hopes of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in respect of overspill.
The same thing applies in Scotland, but with the difference that there are areas there which are not so fortunately placed as that part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. I am referring to the fact that there are 100,000 unemployed persons in Scotland, and there are areas there which have double the average rate of unemployment that exists in England, and which are not within development districts. Therefore, from the point of view not of overspill alone but of obtaining employment, those areas are denied benefit by the President of the Board of Trade.
If there is one thing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the House has no right to sneer at it is the representation of the Scottish people in this House, certainly on this side of it.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I never sneer at anything.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has plenty to worry him about the way in which Scottish legislation is handled by the Scottish Office. He knows the muddle that it is in. He also knows that there is not a single Scottish Tory back bencher on the Standing Committees which are considering the Agriculture and Horticulture Bill, the Police Bill and the Housing Bill. That shows the extent of their interest.
While this problem exists we shall speak. We believe that it is the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade either to be here himself or to be sure that somebody else is here when we give him reasonable notice that we wish to raise a matter of this kind. My hon. Friends have spoken about the position in Lanarkshire, Dunbartonshire and Ayrshire. This is a serious matter. Britain is in the middle of a boom, but Scotland, once more, has a high unemployment figure. We cannot blame the weather this time. We must take account of the failure of the Government's policies. They may be well intentioned, but they are not working Every week brings the story of another factory closing.
We have heard of the serious position of the factory in Falkirk. It has been there for generations, but 650 people are losing their jobs there. The same is true of Acme Wringers, in Greenock, which is dropping part of its production. This will probably mean the loss of about 1,000 jobs. What a song and dance we get from the Government if something is done that may produce that number of jobs in five or six years. I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that when this kind of thing occurs again steps will be taken to see that a Minister is here properly to do his job in this House—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.